Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57
October 2003
Steur v. the Netherlands - 39657/98
Judgment 28.10.2003 [Section II]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Statements made by a lawyer in the course of judicial proceedings deemed contrary to professional standards: violation
Facts: The applicant is a lawyer who was acting on behalf of a person of Surinamese origin being prosecuted for social security fraud. In the related civil proceedings, the applicant stated that the social security investigating officer, W., had exerted unacceptable pressure on his client to procure an incriminating statement from him. W. filed a disciplinary complaint against the applicant for unfounded insinuations which had tarnished his good reputation. Both the Disciplinary Council and the Appeals Tribunal found the complaint of W. well-founded as the applicant had given a qualification which was not supported by any facts and should, prior to raising such allegations, have sought information from his client as to the circumstances constitutive of the unacceptable pressure. No sanction was however imposed on the applicant.
Law: Article 10 – Despite the fact that a sanction was not imposed on him, the applicant had been subject to a “restriction” or a “formality” on his freedom of expression, as there was a formal finding that he was at fault and this could have had a discouraging effect on the exercise of his professional duties in the future. The interference was prescribed by law and intended to protect the reputation or the rights of others, but failed to answer any pressing social need. The limits of acceptable criticism may in some circumstances be wider with regard to civil servants, and the applicant’s statements were directed at W.’s actions in his capacity as an investigating social security officer. The criticism was confined to the court room and did not amount to a personal insult. The applicant’s submissions were consistent and based on the fact that his client had not fully understood the incriminating statement, which he had made in the absence of an interpreter. The national authorities had not attempted to establish the truth or falsehood of the applicant’s statement or whether it had been made in good faith. Moreover, the threat of ex post facto review of his statements could have a “chilling effect” on the exercise of the applicant’s professional duties and in defending the interests of his clients in the future.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy