PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 34000/96) against the French Republic lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two French nationals, Mr Albert Du Roy and Mr Guillaume Malaurie (“the applicants”), on 13 September 1996. The applicants were represented by Mr J.-Y. Dupeux and Mr C. Bigot, both of the Paris Bar. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Charpentier, Head of the Human Rights Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and subsequently by his successor, Mrs M. Dubrocard.

Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained of an infringement of their right to freedom of expression.

On 22 October 1997 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to give notice of the application to the Government, inviting them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits. The Government submitted their observations on 10 February 1998 and the applicants submitted theirs on 2 April 1998.

Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention on 1 November 1998, and in accordance with Article 5 § 2 thereof, the case was examined by the Court.

In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Third Section. The Chamber that would consider the case was then constituted within that Section (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 26 § 1).

On 15 June 1999 the Chamber declared the application admissible [Note by the Registry. The Court's decision is obtainable from the Registry.].

On 25 June 1999 it requested the parties to submit further evidence and observations, together with any proposals for a friendly settlement, by 30 August 1999 and informed them that they were entitled to request a hearing; it also requested the applicants to submit their claims under Article 41 of the Convention by the same date.

In a letter of 2 July 1999 the applicants asked for a hearing on the merits of the case. In a letter of 27 August 1999 the Government stated that they did not consider a hearing necessary and that they were not prepared to reach a friendly settlement. The parties did not submit any further observations.

On 7 March 2000 the Chamber decided that it was not necessary to hold a hearing.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

At the material time the first applicant was the editor of the weekly magazine L'Evénement du Jeudi and the second applicant was a journalist on the magazine.

In its edition of 11 to 17 February 1993 L'Evénement du Jeudi published an article by the second applicant under the headline: “Sonacotra: the Left puts its house in order”.

The article was particularly critical of Michel Gagneux, the former head of Sonacotra (national company for the construction of workers' housing), and of his relations with Sonacotra's new management, who on 10 February 1993 had lodged a criminal complaint against Mr Gagneux alleging misuse of company property and had applied to join the proceedings as a civil party.

On 11 March 1993 Mr Gagneux summoned the applicants to appear in the Paris Criminal Court to answer a charge of publishing information concerning applications to join criminal proceedings as a civil party, an offence under section 2 of the Act of 2 July 1931. Mr Gagneux considered that he had been the victim of a breach of that provision on account of the following passages of the article published in L'Evénement du Jeudi: “Sonacotra: the Left puts its house in order” “Never before! The managers of a public company have condemned their predecessors' running of the company – and lodged a criminal complaint!” “Raison d'Etat foiled! In bringing a complaint against their predecessor Michel Gagneux for misappropriation and misuse of company property, Sonacotra's managers have shown courage. As they are well aware, there is a serious risk that it will be discovered that men with links to the PS [Socialist Party] have been able to make free with the 'immigrants' cash'.”

In a judgment of 9 July 1993 the Paris Criminal Court found the applicants guilty and fined them 3,000 French francs (FRF) each. In addition to that sentence, damages were awarded to Mr Gagneux in his civil action and an order was made for the judgment to be published. The court noted that the prohibition in section 2 of the Act of 2 July 1931 was general and absolute; the information had only to concern a criminal complaint that had been lodged together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. The court further stated that the prohibition was intended to safeguard the presumption of innocence and to prevent any external influence on the course of justice. Accordingly, it was necessary in a democratic society for the “protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention.

On 16 July 1993 the applicants appealed against that judgment.

In a judgment of 2 February 1994 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the applicants' conviction and the amount of the fine but reduced to one franc the damages awarded to Mr Gagneux as the civil party. Its decision included the following passage: “The trial court rightly dismissed the defendants' submission that the Act of 2 July 1931 was incompatible with Article 10 [of the Convention], noting that the provisions of that Act, which were designed to protect persons against whom a complaint is lodged, to safeguard the presumption of innocence and to prevent any external influence on the course of justice, fell within the scope of the restrictions on freedom of expression permitted by the ... Convention ..., the restriction in question being proportionate to the aim pursued.”

The applicants then appealed on points of law. In their grounds of appeal they submitted, as they had done in the courts below, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. They referred to the general and absolute nature of the prohibition of publication, arguing that it was disproportionate to the aim pursued.

In a judgment of 19 March 1996 the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings had become barred as a result of an intervening amnesty. It further held that it was still required to rule on the appeal on points of law in respect of the civil action and dismissed it, stating in particular: “The Court of Appeal rightly dismissed the defendants' submission that the Act of 2 July 1931 was incompatible with Article 10 of the ... Convention ... While the first paragraph of Article 10 of the said Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, the second paragraph provides that the exercise of that freedom, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for, inter alia, the protection of the rights of others, and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary; such is the purpose, which is proportionate to the aim pursued, of section 2 of the Act cited above.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e1
001-58829_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
34000/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e2
001-58829_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
French Republic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e3
001-58829_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e4
001-58829_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Albert Du Roy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e5
001-58829_a11_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Guillaume Malaurie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e6
001-58829_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e7
001-58829_a11_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.-Y. Dupeux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e8
001-58829_a11_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Bigot
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e9
001-58829_a11_em9
ORG
QUASI
Paris Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e2
001-58829_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-58829_a11_em2
French Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e10
001-58829_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Y. Charpentier
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e11
001-58829_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Section
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e12
001-58829_a11_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs M. Dubrocard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e13
001-58829_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
22 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e14
001-58829_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
10 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e15
001-58829_a11_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
2 April 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e16
001-58829_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e17
001-58829_a11_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e18
001-58829_a11_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
15 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e19
001-58829_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e20
001-58829_a11_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
30 August 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e21
001-58829_a11_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
2 July 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e22
001-58829_a11_em23
DATETIME
NO_MASK
27 August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e23
001-58829_a11_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e24
001-58829_a11_em25
ORG
QUASI
L'Evénement du Jeudi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e25
001-58829_a11_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
17 February 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e24
001-58829_a11_em27
ORG
QUASI
L'Evénement du Jeudi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e26
001-58829_a11_em28
MISC
QUASI
Sonacotra: the Left puts its house in order
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Michel Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e28
001-58829_a11_em30
ORG
QUASI
Sonacotra
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e28
001-58829_a11_em31
ORG
QUASI
Sonacotra
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e29
001-58829_a11_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
10 February 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em33
PERSON
QUASI
001-58829_a11_em29
Mr Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e30
001-58829_a11_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e31
001-58829_a11_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Paris Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e24
001-58829_a11_em38
ORG
QUASI
001-58829_a11_em25
L'Evénement du Jeudi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e26
001-58829_a11_em39
MISC
QUASI
Sonacotra: the Left puts its house in order
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Michel Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e28
001-58829_a11_em41
ORG
QUASI
Sonacotra
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e32
001-58829_a11_em42
ORG
NO_MASK
PS
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e32
001-58829_a11_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
001-58829_a11_em42
Socialist Party
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e33
001-58829_a11_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e31
001-58829_a11_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
Paris Criminal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e34
001-58829_a11_em46
QUANTITY
QUASI
3,000 French francs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em47
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e35
001-58829_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
16 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e36
001-58829_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
2 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e37
001-58829_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Paris Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58829_a11_e27
001-58829_a11_em51
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gagneux
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e38
001-58829_a11_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
19 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58829_a11_e39
001-58829_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58829_a11_e40
001-58829_a11_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
Albert Du Roy
FRA
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Albert Du Roy