Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16
March 2000
Wabl v. Austria - 24773/94
Judgment 21.3.2000 [Section III]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Injunction prohibiting reference to "Nazi journalism": no violation
Facts: The applicant, a Member of Parliament and a member of the Green Party, was involved in protests against the stationing of fighter planes, during which it was alleged that he had scratched a policeman's arm. He was charged but the proceedings were discontinued. A newspaper, in an article headed "Police Officer claims: AIDS test for Wabl", called for the applicant to have an AIDS test, claiming that the policeman that he had scratched feared that he had been infected. When asked to comment, the applicant, believing the article to be politically motivated, said it was "Nazi-journalism". The newspaper brought injunction proceedings against the applicant to prohibit him from repeating the statement. The first and second instance courts dismissed the newspaper's application, finding that the impugned statement was a value-judgment and referring to an expert opinion that the defamation of political opponents with an alleged illness was an essential element of journalism under the Nazi regime. However, the Supreme Court overturned those decisions and issued a preliminary injunction against the applicant prohibiting him from repeating his opinion that it was "Nazi-journalism". The court noted that while the statement was intended as a value-judgment, in balancing the respective interests those of the newspaper were significant, since the reproach of "Nazi-journalism" would be close to a charge of criminal behaviour under the National Socialism Prohibition Act.
Law: It was not disputed that the injunction constituted an interference which was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the reputation or rights of others. Moreover, the reasons given by the Supreme Court were relevant and sufficient: the applicant's remark was not only polemical but particularly offensive and the Supreme Court duly balanced the interests involved, in particular having regard to the special stigma which attaches to activities inspired by National Socialist ideas. The article about the applicant was defamatory and it was doubtful whether it contributed to a debate of general concern and despite the fact that the applicant is a politician, he had justifiable grounds for indignation. However, he did not use the term "Nazi journalism" until several days later and the injunction concerned only the repetition of that term or similar ones, so that he retained the right to voice his opinion about the newspaper's reporting in other terms.
Conclusion: no violation (6 votes to 1).
© 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