On 12 July 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held by a majority of six to one, in the case of Reichman v France that France was in violation of Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
The applicant, Claude Reichman, was a French national living in Paris and was a presenter on a radio station. In 2006, he made a comment on air questioning the financial situation of the radio station and expressing his concern over the legality of the situation, and highlighted the need for its verification. This comment was then the subject of a complaint made by the vice-chairman of the board of directors of the association responsible for managing the radio station.
The Paris Criminal Court, in 2009, found Mr Reichman guilty of public defamation of a private person, on the ground that he had imputed potentially criminal actions on the management team. The appeal court upheld this conviction. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation found his appeal on points of law inadmissible, because he had instructed his solicitor in advance of the court decision to appeal on a point of law in the event that the conviction was upheld.
Applying to the ECtHR, Mr Reichman submitted that there had been a disproportionate interference with his right of access to the Court of Cassation under Article 6 ECHR, and also that there was a breach of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR.
In relation to Article 6, the right to a fair trial, the ECtHR found that in finding Mr Reichman’s appeals on a point of law inadmissible, the Court of Cassation were demonstrating ‘excessive formalism’ which amounted to a disproportionate interference with his right of access to a court. The ECtHR took into account the very narrow deadline (5 days) for appealing on a point of law. Thus the ECtHR found a breach of his Article 6 rights to a fair trial.
In relation to Article 10, the ECtHR noted that the comments were made as part of a debate on matters of general interest and that he was expressing himself in his capacity as a presenter. It was noted that some degree of ‘exaggeration’ or ‘provocation’ is generally permitted in the exercise of journalistic freedom. It also emphasised the fact that the Article 10 protection is subject to journalists acting in good faith to provide accurate and reliable information. The Court assessed Mr Reichman’s comments, and found that they were suggesting the possible existence of irregularities in the financial management of the radio station, and that he concluded his remarks by stating the need to carry out further checks. Thus it was concluded that this amounted to a value judgement and not a statement of fact.
Important too was the fact that his comments had a factual basis, supported by documents from the radio station’s accounts department and auditor, attesting to the radio’s poor financial circumstances. The ECtHR found that the domestic courts had only proved the constituent elements of defamation, without reviewing proportionality, and that they had not drawn a distinction between statements of facts and value judgements. Furthermore the ECtHR focused on the fact that a criminal sanction would represent the most serious form of interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, regardless of how light the sanction was.
The ECtHR concluded on this basis that Mr Reichman’s conviction resulted in a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression and thus held a violation of Article 10.
To read the press release, please click here. The judgement is only available in French, click here.