European Court of Human Rights
22 October 2007
Facts
The applicants, an author and publisher published a novel which concerned the Chairman of the Front National, a far-right French political party. This novel, based on real events but adding fictional elements, talked about the trial of a militant of the Front National who committed a racist crime. This novel raised questions about the responsibility of this political party in the growth of racism in France. The author and publisher were convicted of defamation, regarding four passages from the book. A newspaper director, the third applicant, published a petition repeating the disputed statements and protesting against these convictions. He was also convicted for defamation.
Complaint
The three applicants complained that there convictions violated their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court held that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. The Court noted that any kind of writing, including novelistic writings, could result in a conviction for defamation, especially when they mixed facts and fiction. In this case, the finding of defamation could not be criticised in view of the virulent content of the offending passages and the fact that they specifically named the Front National and its chairman. The Court agreed with the national court of appeal who found that the offending passages did not have a sufficient factual basis and that the applicants had failed to carry out “basic verification” beforehand. Finally the Court held that the wording used in the disputed passages when beyond what was tolerable in a political debate as it expressed the intention of stigmatising the opponent and stirred up violence and hatred. Therefore, the convictions had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.