FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION / PROTECTION OF REPUTATION / RECEIVE SEEK AND IMPART INFORMATION / FREELY HOLD OPINIONS

Summary:
Journalist convicted of defamation (Article 111 of the Criminal Code).

Article 10
1. Interference by public authority with the exercise of the applicant’s freedom of expression - not disputed.
2. Interference "prescribed by law" and had a legitimate aim: protection of the reputation of others.
3. Words held against the applicant related to public statements and attitude of a politician - no need to read Article 10 in the light of Article 8.
4. Necessity of the interference - State’s margin of appreciation goes hand in hand with a European supervision - consideration (if the impugned court decisions in the light of the case as a whole - review of their proportionality in relation to legitimate aim pursued and of relevancy and sufficiency of their reasoning.
5. Freedom of expression: essential foundation of a democratic society - duty of press to impart information and ideas on political and other issues - right of the public to receive the same.
6. Freedom of the press - one of the best means for the public of discovering and forming an opinion on the ideas and attitudes of political leaders - limits of acceptable criticism wider as regards a politician than as regards a private individual - requirements of the protection of his reputation to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues.
7. Applicant’s articles: dealing with political issues of public interest in the country content and tone on the whole balanced but use of expressions likely to harm a politician’s reputation - regard had to the background: post-election political controversy - verbal weapons used in no way unusual in the hard-fought tussles of politics.
8. Penalty imposed on the applicant - likely to deter journalists from contributing to public discussion - liable to hamper the press in performing its task.
9. Grounds of the relevant court decisions considered - value-judgments held against applicant - accordingly, freedom of opinion and the right to impart ideas at issue - proving truth impossible of fulfilment in respect of value - judgments - truth of facts relied on and applicant’s good faith undisputed - interference not proportionate to legitimate aim pursued, hence not necessary.
Conclusion: violation.

Article 50
1. Fine imposed and costs awarded against the applicant in domestic proceedings: entitled to recover these sums by reason of their direct link with the violation of the Convention - expenditure incurred as a result of having to publish the judgment in the applicant’s magazine: reproduction costs and some loss of opportunity, assessed on an equitable basis.
2. Own costs and expenses - (i) before the national courts: amount sought appears reasonable; (ii) before the Convention institutions: reservations as to whether they were reasonable as to quantum; (iii) travel and subsistence expenses of the applicant in Strasbourg: reimbursed.
Conclusion: Austria to pay specified sums.