EIT hyväksyi yhden valituksen käsiteltäväksi suuressa jaostossa

13.12.2013 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuren jaoston paneeli on hyväksynyt suuren jaoston käsiteltäväksi yhden valituksen, jossa oli kyse asianajajan saamasta kunnianloukkaustuomiosta. Muut 20 valitusta, joissa suuren jaoston käsittelyä oli pyydetty, pyyntö evättiin, jolloin jaostoratkaisuista tuli lopullisia.

Hylättyjen pyyntöjen joukossa oli muun muassa kolme Ruotsia koskevaa valitusta, joissa oli kyse turvapaikanhakijoiden käännyttämisestä Irakiin. Näitä valituksia koskevissa jaostoratkaisuissa oli todettu, että Ruotsi ei loukkaisi valittajien oikeutta elämään tai rikkoisi kidutuksen, epäinhimillisen tai halventavan kohtelun kieltoa, mikäli valittajat käännytettäisiin Irakiin, koska valittajilla oli mahdollisuus muuttaa kotimaassaan Irakissa turvalliselle alueelle.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

Referral accepted
Morice v. France (application no. 29369/10)

The applicant, Olivier Morice, is a French national who was born in 1960 and lives in Paris (France). He is the lawyer of Elisabeth Borrel, the widow of the French judge Bernard Borrel, whose dead body was found, partly burnt, on 19 October 1995, 90 kilometres from the city of Djibouti. The investigation conducted by the gendarmerie concluded that Mr Borrel had committed suicide by self-immolation. In November 1995 a judicial investigation was opened in Toulouse into the causes of the judge’s death. In February 1997 Ms Borrel disputed the above finding and filed a complaint as a civil party for premeditated murder. A judicial investigation was opened and assigned to judge M. and judge L.L. On 21 June 2000, the case was withdrawn from the two investigating judges by the Paris Court of Appeal.

On 7 September 2000, Le Monde published an article entitled “Borrel Case: Judge M.’s impartiality called into question”. The article stated that Ms Borrel’s lawyers had “vigorously” challenged judge M. before the Minister of Justice, accusing her of “conduct that was completely contrary to the principles of impartiality and loyalty”.

Following a complaint of the two contested judges, the court found Mr Morice to be an accessory of public defamation of judges M. and L.L.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Morice alleged that his case had not been determined fairly and impartially by the Court of Cassation. He stated that judge J.M., who was part of the bench which ruled on his appeal on points of law, had previously and publicly expressed support for judge M. at the general assembly of judges sitting at the Paris tribunal de grande instance on 4 July 2000. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, he alleged that there had been a breach of his right to freedom of expression.

In its Chamber judgment of 11 July 2013 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It found that a member of the Court of Cassation which ruled on Mr Morice’s appeal on points of law had previously expressed his support for a judge who was a party to the proceedings against him. The Court concluded that serious doubts could be raised as to the Court of Cassation’s impartiality and that Mr Morice’s fears could be held to be objectively justified. However, the Court held by a majority that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It considered that the national courts could have been satisfied that the comments made by Mr Morice in Le Monde were serious and insulting to the judge in question, that they were capable of unnecessarily undermining public confidence in the judicial system and, lastly, that there were sufficient grounds to convict Mr Morice of public defamation.

On 9 December 2013 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the applicant.

Koko lehdistötiedote löytyy täältä: Press release

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments