EIT:n suuri jaosto: Asianajajan tuomitseminen kunnianloukkausesta tuomarin julkisen kritisoinnin johdosta muodosti EIS 6 ja 10 artiklan loukkauksen

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto on tänään antanut tuomion Ranskaa vastaan, jossa se katsoi asianajajan oikeutta oikeudenmukaiseen oikedenkäyntiin ja hänen sananvapauttaan loukatun. Asianajaja oli kritisoinut julkisesti kahta tuomaria heidän toimittamastaan kolmannen tuomarin kuolemansyyn selvittämisestä.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Morice v. France (application no. 29369/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.

The case concerned the conviction of a lawyer, on account of remarks reported in the press, for complicity in defamation of the investigating judges who had been removed from the judicial investigation into the death of Judge Bernard Borrel.

The Grand Chamber found in particular that Mr Morice had expressed value judgments with a sufficient factual basis. His remarks had not exceeded the limits of the right guaranteed by Article 10 and they concerned a matter of public interest, namely the functioning of the justice system and the handling of the Borrel case.

The Grand Chamber nevertheless emphasised that lawyers could not be equated with journalists, not being external witnesses with the task of informing the public, but being directly involved in the functioning of the justice system and the defence of a party.

The Grand Chamber further found that significant weight had to be attached to the context of the case, while pointing out that it was necessary to maintain the authority of the judiciary and to ensure mutual respect between judges and lawyers.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: Press release

EIT:n “Q & A”-tiedote päivän tuomiosta: Questions & answers concerning the judgment Morice v. France