(IPI/IFEX) – The following is an IPI press release: Press Release (for immediate release) Vienna, 5 October 1999 IPI Welcomes European Court Judgement The International Press Institute today welcomed the fact that the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that Romania had violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human […]
(IPI/IFEX) – The following is an IPI press release:
Press Release
(for immediate release)
Vienna, 5 October 1999
IPI Welcomes European Court Judgement
The International Press Institute today welcomed the fact that the European
Court of Human Rights held unanimously that Romania had violated Article 10
(freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights when it
found a journalist guilty of criminal libel and sentenced him to 3 months’
imprisonment (suspended).
The case concerned a Romanian journalist, Ionel Dalban, who ran a local
weekly magazine, Cronica Romascana. In September 1992, Dalban published an
article in his magazine about a series of frauds allegedly committed by the
chief executive of a State-owned agricultural company. Dalban’s story, which
was based on Fraud Squad reports, also cast suspicion on a Senator. The
European Court noted in its judgement on September 28 that the articles
“concerned a matter of public interest: the management of State assets and
the manner in which politicians fulfil their mandate.”
Johann P. Fritz, Director of the International Press Institute, said today
in Vienna, “The European Court has struck a blow for press freedom. Public
figures cannot be allowed to use draconian libel legislation to shield
themselves from scrutiny.”
The Court noted that the interest of democratic society could best be served
by enabling the press to exercise its essential role of “public watchdog”
and to impart information of serious public concern. “It would be
unacceptable for a journalist to be debarred from expressing critical value
judgements unless he or she could prove their truth,” the judges said.
As there was no proof that the article was totally untrue or designed to
fuel a defamation campaign against the plaintiff, the Court held that the
conviction could not be considered “necessary in a democratic society”.
Addressing the key issue of proportionality, the Court felt that “convicting
Mr Dalban of a criminal offence and sentencing him to imprisonment had
amounted to disproportionate interference with the exercise of his freedom
of expression as a journalist.”
This judgement now becomes a part of the substantial body of case law,
established by the Court and the European Commission of Human Rights, which
places ‘restrictions on the restrictions’ to freedom of expression indicated
in Article 10, paragraph 2 on the Convention. All member states of the
Council of Europe are legally obliged to consider freedom of expression
cases in light of this case law.
“We very much hope that this judgement heralds the beginning of the end of
criminal defamation in Europe and elsewhere,” Fritz said. “Punishments must
be proportionate to the alleged offence committed. Prison sentences,
suspended or otherwise, for the peaceful expression of an opinion, can never
be a commensurate punishment. Civil codes provide adequate redress for any
citizen who feels wrongfully harmed.”
“Unfortunately Ionel Dalban passed away last year so didn’t live long enough
to see his name cleared,” Fritz said. “Hopefully this vindication provides
some solace for his widow. He will be remembered by the international
journalist community as a principled figure who took a stand for freedom of
expression.”
