The applicant newspaper had quoted a letter defamatory of a politician which had earlier been published by another paper in the context. The Court said: ‘of its reportage about the then pending defamation proceedings against Mr Heller [the author of the letter] which, involving several . . politicians on the one hand and a well-known artist criticising them publicly on the other hand, was certainly a subject of public interest.’ The Austrian courts had ordered the forfeiture of the publication concerned.
Held: The forfeiture was in violation of Art. 10: ‘due to the fact that the publication of Mr Heller’s statements contributed to the discussion of a subject of public interest and addressed well-known politicians, particularly strong reasons had to be put forward to explain any punishment of the applicant company for assisting in their dissemination.( see mutatis mutandis Thoma v Luxembourg).
It is certainly true that the article at issue reflected a rather critical approach to the defamation proceedings. This cannot, however, justify the conclusion that the article identified and adopted the content of the impugned statements of the quoted passage. In this regard the Court further recalls that a general requirement for journalists to distance themselves from the content of a quotation that might provoke or insult others or damage their reputation is not reconcilable with the press’s role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas (see Thoma v Luxembourg). ‘
Citations:
76918/01, [2006] ECHR 1092
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
See Also – Verlagsgruppe News Gmbh v Austria (No. 2) ECHR 14-Dec-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.248189