|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 31/01/06 Gerichtshof – Kammerurteil im Fall Giniewski gegen Frankreich [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 52
Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Giniewski v. France (application no. 64016/00). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the finding against the applicant for defamation. Since the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under Article 41 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.) 1. Principal facts The applicant, Paul Giniewski, is a 79-year-old Austrian national who lives in Paris. He is a journalist, sociologist and historian and states that he strives to promote closer relations between Jews and Christians in all his works. On 4 January 1994 the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris published an article by the applicant with the headline “The obscurity of error”, concerning the encyclical “The splendour of truth” issued by Pope John Paul II. The article contained a critical analysis of the Pope’s position and sought to develop an argument about the scope of a particular doctrine and its possible links with the origins of the Holocaust. An association entitled “General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for the French and Christian Identity” (Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l’identité française et chrétienne – AGRIF) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, the newspaper and its publishing director, Philippe Tesson, alleging that they had published racially defamatory statements against the Christian community. The defendants were found guilty of defamation at first instance but were acquitted on appeal. Ruling on the civil claim, the Orléans Court of Appeal held that the applicant was to pay nominal damages of one franc to the AGRIF and that its ruling was to be published at his expense in a national newspaper. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation but without success. ./.. 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 December 2000 and declared admissible on 7 June 2005. Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows: András Baka (Hungarian), President, 3. Summary of the judgment2 Complaint
Decision of the Court
The Court observed that although the article by the applicant had criticised the Pope’s position, the analysis it contained could not be extended to Christianity as a whole, which was made up of various strands, several of which rejected papal authority. The applicant had sought to develop an argument about the scope of a particular doctrine and its possible links with the origins of the Holocaust. In so doing he had made a contribution, which by definition was open to discussion, to a wide-ranging and ongoing ideological debate, without sparking off any controversy that was gratuitous or detached from the reality of contemporary thought. By considering the detrimental effects of a particular doctrine, the article in question had contributed to discussion of the various possible reasons behind the extermination of Jews in Europe, a question of indisputable public interest in a democratic society. In such matters restrictions on freedom of expression were to be strictly construed. Although the issue raised in the present case concerned a doctrine upheld by the Catholic Church, and hence a religious matter, an analysis of the article in question showed that it did not contain attacks on religious beliefs as such, but a view which the applicant had wished to express as a journalist and historian. In that connection, the Court considered it essential in a democratic society that a debate on the causes of acts of particular gravity amounting to crimes against humanity should be able to take place freely. While the article in question, as the applicant himself acknowledged, contained conclusions and phrases that might offend, shock or disturb some people, the Court reiterated that such views did not in themselves preclude the enjoyment of freedom of expression. The article in question had, moreover, not been “gratuitously offensive” or insulting and had not incited disrespect or hatred. Nor had it cast doubt in any way on clearly established historical facts. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the reasons given by the French courts could not be regarded as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. With regard to the penalty imposed on the applicant, the Court noted that, after being acquitted in the criminal proceedings, in the civil action he had been ordered to pay one franc in damages to the AGRIF and, in particular, to publish a notice of the ruling in a national newspaper at his own expense. While the publication of such a notice did not in principle appear to constitute an excessive restriction on freedom of expression, the fact that it mentioned the criminal offence of defamation undoubtedly had a deterrent effect and the sanction thus imposed appeared disproportionate in view of the importance and interest of the debate in which the applicant had legitimately sought to take part. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Registry of the European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note |
Note |
