Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 81
December 2005
Vérités Santé Pratique Sarl v. France (dec.) - 74766/01
Decision 1.12.2005 [Section I]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal to renew a registration certificate entitling a company which published a magazine to preferential tax and postal rates: inadmissible
The applicant company publishes the health magazine Vérités Santé Pratique, which first appeared in 1997 and is distributed to subscribers. It adopts a critical approach to health matters and informs its readers on alternative types of treatment. The applicant company was registered until 1999 with the CPPAP (joint publications and press agency commission) and was thereby entitled to certain advantages under a special regime specific to the press including preferential postal rates and tax relief. Its application for the renewal of its registration met with a refusal by the CPPAP, which considered that the magazine did not fulfil a general interest as required by the regulations governing the special regime. The applicant company requested the CPPAP to reconsider its decision, but it maintained its refusal, adding that certain information published by the magazine was potentially harmful to public health and did not comply with relevant legislation. The company appealed to the Conseil d'Etat, which annulled the first decision of the CPPAP for lack of reasoning, but upheld the second in its entirety, finding that the magazine disseminated unverified medical information which discredited the conventional treatment given to patients with serious illnesses such as cancer or hypertension. According to the Government, the applicant company has since been continuing its publications under a new title and on the Internet.
Inadmissible under Article 10: The issuance of a registration certificate entitling its holder to tax rebates and preferential postal rates was not a right that this Article guaranteed per se, but, in the present case, the impugned decisions could be regarded as directed against the applicant’s opinions on medical matters. Moreover, the withdrawal of the pecuniary advantage in issue had influenced the choice of medium for future publication (at least until the appearance of a new magazine) and had therefore restricted the applicant’s freedom to choose its means of expression. The complaint thus fell within the ambit of Article 10 and the non-renewal of the certificate amounted to interference by a public authority with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. That interference had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of “protecting public health”, and indeed that of protecting the rights of others. As to its necessity, it was necessary to weigh the protection of public health against the protection of the applicant’s freedom of expression. The applicant company could not be denied the protection available to the press under Article 10, as it was in the general interest to authorise small non-mainstream groups to contribute to public debate on issues such as health. Moreover, the impact of the impugned publication, in view of its low circulation, had been limited. However, the fact that the applicant company had been able to continue publishing under a different title and in a different medium reduced the effects of the interference. Above all, Article 10 did not guarantee unlimited freedom of expression and the public‑health grounds submitted by the public authorities to justify the interference were pertinent and sufficient. There was thus a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the applicant company’s freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 14 for non-exhaustion of internal remedies, as the applicant company had not raised the argument of discrimination in the Conseil d’Etat.
© 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