EIT: Asianajajalle määrätty kurinpidollinen sanktio valituskirjelmän kielenkäytöstä oli liian ankara

21.12.2015 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on tuoreessa Ranskaa koskevassa tuomiossa katsonut, että terrorismisepäillyn puolustajana toimineen asianajajan kurinpidolliset sanktiot olivat liian ankaria huolimatta siitä, että asianajaja oli voimakkaasti kritisoinut tutkintatuomareita väittäen heidän olleen osallisena kidutuksessa hankiessaan tiettyjä asiakirjoja todisteiksi huolimatta siitä, että asiakirjat oli väitetysti hankittu käyttämällä kidutusta.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In [a] Chamber judgment in the case of Bono v. France (application no. 29024/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned a disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr Bono, as lawyer acting for a suspected terrorist, S.A., for remarks made in his pleadings before the Court of Appeal. He claimed that the French investigating judges had been complicit in the torture of S.A. by the Syrian secret services and thus sought the exclusion of statements obtained through the use of torture.

The Court found that the remarks in question, as they were so harsh, clearly showed some contempt for the investigating judges. However, they did not refer to the judges personally but concerned the manner in which they had carried out the investigation. The written submissions, which had a factual basis, contributed directly to the defence of Mr Bono’s client and did not leave the courtroom. As Mr Bono had already been summoned to show moderation, during the hearing in the Paris Court of Appeal, the Court found that the disciplinary sanction was not proportionate.

While it was for judicial and disciplinary authorities, in the interest of the proper functioning of the justice system, to penalise certain conduct by lawyers, those authorities had to ensure that such scrutiny did not have a chilling effect that would hinder them in defending their clients’ interests.