Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=27.05.2003&Aktenzeichen=43425/98
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:26:16+00:00

Document:
The Court reiterates that the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 (see, for example, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV; Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, §§ 41-42, 27 May 2003; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XI).
Enfin, la Cour rappelle que la nature et la lourdeur des peines infligées sont des éléments à prendre en considération lorsqu'il s'agit de mesurer la proportionnalité d'une atteinte au droit à la liberté d'expression garanti par l'article 10 (CumpÇ?nÇ? et MazÇ?re c. Roumanie [GC], no 33348/96, § 111, CEDH 2004-XI, et Skalka c. Pologne, no 43425/98, § 41, 27 mai 2003).
En particulier, les juges, eu égard à leur rôle et à leur devoir de discrétion, ne sont pas en mesure de répondre à des attaques personnelles par le biais des médias comme peuvent le faire les hommes politiques et d'autres personnages publics (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Barfod c. Danemark, 22 février 1989, série A no 149, Schöpfer c. Suisse, 20 mai 1998, Recueil 1998-III, et Skalka c. Pologne, no 43425/98, 27 mai 2003).
If the sole intent of any form of expression is to insult a court, or members of that court, an appropriate punishment would not, in principle, constitute a violation of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003).
Finally, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).
The Government contrasted the present case with the case of Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, 27 May 2003, where for proffering insults against a non-identified judge the court had imposed on the applicant a sentence of eight months" imprisonment.
As set forth in Article 10 § 2, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, for example, Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 32, 27 May 2003).
In that connection, the Court finds that even though the remarks may be regarded as showing a certain lack of regard for the Constitutional Court following its decision, they cannot be described as grave or as insulting of the judges of the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Ska³ka v. Poland , no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003; Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-V; and Nikula cited above, §§ 48, 52).
If the sole intent of any form of expression is to insult or attack the dignity of a court or its members, an appropriate sanction would not, in principle, constitute a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003; Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, § 36, 30 March 2006; and Zugic v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, § 45, 31 May 2011).
The Court reiterates in this respect that the judiciary, as with all other public institutions, cannot be immune from criticism, however shocking and unacceptable certain views or words may appear (see Sergey Kuznetsov, cited above, § 45, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 34, 27 May 2003).
However, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be held against him if, in spite of his failure to observe the forms prescribed by law, the competent authority has nevertheless examined the appeal (see, inter alia, Mitropolia Basarabiei Si Exarhatul Plaiurilor and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 45701/99, 7 June 2001; Skalka v. Poland (dec.), no. 43425/98, 3 October 2002).
In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are among the factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).

References: v. 
 § 37
 v. 
 v. 
 § 93
 § 111
 § 41
 § 2
 v. 
 § 34
 v. 
 § 38
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 § 32
 v. 
 § 34
 v. 
 § 47
 v. 
 § 34
 v. 
 § 36
 v. 
 § 45
 § 45
 v. 
 § 34
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 37
 v. 
 § 69
 v. 
 § 38