(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has called on the French government to repeal sections of the country’s press laws that contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, while accusing the government of ignoring rulings that the contentious sections should be abolished. “The European Court of Human Rights has firmly stated three times in recent years that sections […]
(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has called on the French government to repeal sections of the country’s press laws that contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, while accusing the government of ignoring rulings that the contentious sections should be abolished.
“The European Court of Human Rights has firmly stated three times in recent years that sections of French laws violate Article 10 of the Convention,” RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard noted in a letter to French Justice Minister Dominique Perben.
“The targeted sections are Article 2 of the 2 July 1931 law (on publicising civil parties involved in a court case), Article 14 of the 29 July 1881 law (on foreign publications) and Article 36 of the same law (on “disrespect” of foreign heads of state). None of the sections have been amended or abolished, yet they are clear obstacles to freedom of expression,” Ménard added.
He also noted that the European Court of Human Rights has emphasised the importance of press freedom for the health of any democratic society. The French media constantly had to justify itself, Ménard said. In libel cases, for example, malice is presumed on the part of the journalist, who must prove the contrary, illustrating mistrust of the media.
The thinking behind the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings is slowly filtering into the decisions of French judges in press cases. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is now referred to in nearly all cases that come before French courts. But some judges pay little attention to it, considering that curbs on free expression involved in the prosecution of journalists are necessary in a democratic society and justify the end.
RSF believes it necessary to change the laws and go beyond mere references to the court’s rulings, which do not provide any real legal security, since French courts have no obligation to obey the European Court of Human Rights. In no way does the European Court’s condemnation of French legal practices limit their continued use. The French Supreme Court demonstrated this in a case involving the satirical weekly “Le Canard Enchaîné”.
On 3 October 2000, the European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling concerning an article that appeared in the French weekly “l’Evénement du Jeudi” about legal battles between current and former heads of the firm Sonacotra. The court ruled that no special treatment was due the content of the legal documents relating to civil parties in the case. The French Supreme Court even brushed aside jurisprudence to back the European Court of Human Rights, saying that Article 2 of the 1931 law, with its general and complete ban, restricted freedom of expression in a way that was unnecessary for protecting the legitimate interests listed in Article 10-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has also denounced Article 14 of the 1881 press law, which allows the interior minister to ban the sale and distribution of foreign-language publications or those in French that are produced abroad. In a 17 July 2001 ruling, the court said that in the case of foreign publications, Article 14 contravened common law and was an unnecessary restriction in a democratic society.
Less than a year after the ruling, on 25 June 2002, the court again condemned France for its use of Article 36 of the 1881 law on the disrespect of a foreign head of state. A 1995 article in the French daily “Le Monde” said aides of Moroccan King Hassan II were involved in drug production and smuggling. The king sued and, after initially losing the case, won on appeal to the Supreme Court. The European Court of Human Rights condemned the decision, noting that the offence of “disrespect toward a foreign head of state” prevented journalists from proving their allegations. The court added that the law represented excessive protection of personal reputation or rights, even in cases involving heads of state or government.
The court said the law gave heads of state an undue status in common law that was out of line with modern political ideas and practices. Yet a few days after the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling, on 3 July, the Paris Appeals Court ignored it and said the offence could stand, though it freed the defendants. The Appeals Court decision creates legal doubt, making it vital that Article 36 be abolished, RSF noted.
The European Court of Human Rights says laws must be considered as including both content and interpretation. They must also be predictable, accessible and comprehensible. Anyone exercising their right to express themselves, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says is one of the highest human aspirations, needs to know the limits beyond which such a right is considered excessive.
