Source: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=eu/cases/ECHR/1992/51.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-15 17:07:42
Document Index: 102371348

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 32', 'art. 47', 'art. 25', 'art. 43', 'in fine', 'art. 43', 'art. 50', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 10', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art. 50']

THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND - 13778/88 - Chamber Judgment [1992] ECHR 51 (25 June 1992)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND - 13778/88 - Chamber Judgment [1992] ECHR 51 (25 June 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/51.html
Cite as: 14 EHRR 843, (1992) 14 EHRR 843, [1992] ECHR 51
The case was referred to the Court on 8 March 1991 by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 13778/88) against the Republic of Iceland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by Mr Thorgeir Thorgeirson, an Icelandic citizen, on 19 November 1987.
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings. The President granted him leave to present his own case, subject to his being assisted by the lawyer whom the applicant had designated (Rule 30).
The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, the elected judge of Icelandic nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 22 March 1991 the President drew by lot, in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the seven other members, namely Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr S. K. Martens, Mrs E. Palm, Mr R. Pekkanen and Mr A. N. Loizou (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Mr A. Spielmann replaced Sir Vincent Evans, who had resigned and whose successor at the Court had taken up his duties before the hearing (Rules 2 para. 3 and 22 para. 1).
Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the applicant on the organisation of the procedure (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38).
A number of documents were filed on various dates between 13 October 1991 and 21 January 1992 by the applicant, the Commission and the Government, including further particulars of the his claim under Article 50 (art. 50).
As directed by the President, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 January 1992. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
Mr Thorgeir Thorgeirson is an Icelandic citizen. He is a writer and resides in Reykjavik, Iceland.
From 1979 to 1983 a number of incidents occurred in Iceland involving allegations of police brutality, about ten of which were reported to the police. The last such complaint was made in the autumn of 1983 by a journalist, Mr Skafti Jónsson, and it led to the prosecution of three members of the Reykjavik police, of whom two were acquitted and one convicted. His case received extensive coverage by the press and gave rise to considerable discussion on the relations between the public and the police. This caused the applicant to publish two articles on police brutality in the daily newspaper Morgunbladid on 7 and 20 December 1983 respectively.
The first article read as follows (translation):
Extracts from the second article read as follows:
In response to these articles, the Ministry of Justice sent the applicant a letter dated 9 January 1984. It informed him that the problems raised in the articles were being reviewed at various levels and that the matter was on the agenda of the Parliament (Althing) so that the Minister of Justice could report to it in the near future on the studies and proposals which had been made in this field.
By letter of 27 December 1983, the Reykjavik Police Association had asked the public prosecutor to investigate the aforementioned allegations. Accordingly, he sent the case to the State Criminal Investigation Police ("SCIP") on 21 May 1984 to examine whether the publications constituted defamation within the meaning of Article 108 of the General Penal Code of 1940 (Law no. 19/1940 - "the Penal Code"). On 18 June the SCIP interrogated the applicant, who was assisted by his lawyer.
As a result, on 13 August 1985 the public prosecutor issued a bill of indictment charging the applicant with defamation of unspecified members of the Reykjavik police, contrary to Article 108 of the Penal Code.
The following passages of the first article were considered to be defamatory:
The second article was also considered to contain a defamatory statement:
On 9 September 1985 the indictment was served on the applicant; it summoned him to appear at a sitting on the following day of a chamber of the Reykjavik Criminal Court, of which Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson was the only member. At the applicant’s request, the arraignment was adjourned until 17 September.On that day the court held a sitting at which he appeared, accompanied by Mr Tómas Gunnarsson, a Supreme Court lawyer; the public prosecutor was not present. The sitting proceeded as follows:
On that date the applicant and his counsel appeared before the court, again in the absence of the prosecution. Counsel submitted a motion that Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson should withdraw, on the ground that, in addition to acting as judge, he had represented the prosecution because of its absence at this and the previous sittings.
On 25 September 1985 the judge decided as follows:
On 26 September 1985 the prosecution, pursuant to Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, refused the applicant’s request for leave to file an appeal by way of a summary procedure against that decision with the Supreme Court. He subsequently asked the Ministry of Justice to appoint an ad hoc prosecutor to consider whether leave should be granted, but this request was refused on 18 October.
During the period from 9 October 1985 until 28 April 1986, the Criminal Court held six more sittings at which the applicant and his counsel were present. Documents were submitted, oral statements made and witnesses heard. The public prosecutor appeared at each of these sittings, except that on 17 February 1986, when a video-taped television programme was shown to the court.
At a sitting held on 25 October 1985, Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson showed the applicant photographs of a person and asked him whether this was the young man at the local hospital, described in the first article (see paragraph 9(8) above). The applicant replied as follows:
During a sitting held on 28 April 1986 the parties agreed that further investigation by the court was not required. Accordingly, counsel was given until 3 June 1986 to submit the applicant’s written defence; the prosecutor declared that he would make no further observations.
In his defence, which was filed on 3 June 1986, the applicant resuscitated the claim (see paragraphs 17-19 above) that the case should be dismissed or the defendant acquitted on account of the prosecutor’s absence at certain sittings of the trial. With regard to the merits of the case, he claimed, inter alia, the following:
On 16 June 1986, at a sitting attended by the applicant, judgment was delivered by Judge Pétur Gudgeirsson who rejected the claim based on the prosecutor’s absence at certain sittings. As to the merits he stated inter alia:
The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000 Icelandic crowns to the State Treasury or, in default of payment within four weeks from service of the judgment, to eight days’ imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay all the costs of the case, including his counsel’s fees.
Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court of Iceland, which heard the case on 22 September 1987. Counsel for the applicant requested that not only the Criminal Court’s judgment but also the entire proceedings, starting with the issue of the indictment, be annulled and that the case be referred back to the Criminal Court for adjudication. In the alternative, he sought his client’s acquittal on all charges. The prosecutor asked for aggravation of the penalty.
In its judgment of 20 October 1987, the Supreme Court held inter alia:
In a dissenting opinion one member of the Court held as follows:
Article 72 of the Constitution of 17 June 1944 of the Republic of Iceland reads:
An author may, according to Article 15 of the Right of Publication Act 1956 (Law no. 57/1956), be held both criminally and civilly liable for publications made in his own name, if he is domiciled in Iceland at the time of publication or if he is within the jurisdiction of the Icelandic courts when an action is brought against him. If the publication is not made in his name, it is the publisher, editor, seller, distributor or printer who may incur such liability.
A defamatory publication constitutes a criminal offence under the Penal Code. Article 108 deals specifically with the defamation of civil servants, in the following terms:
In the applicant’s case both the Criminal Court and a majority of the Supreme Court interpreted Article 108 as including defamatory statements directed not only against specific civil servants, but also against a limited group of unspecified civil servants. Precedents to support this interpretation may be found in two Supreme Court judgments: The Public Prosecutor v. Jónas Kristjánsson, 19 January 1983, and The Public Prosecutor v. Agnar Bogason, 31 October 1952.
Article 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests authority to prosecute in the Public Prosecutor, who is assisted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as several prosecutors and deputies. He decides how the investigation in criminal cases is to be conducted and supervises it (Article 21).
Under Article 115, the Public Prosecutor may initiate criminal proceedings by issuing an indictment against the accused. This must clearly specify, inter alia, the court in which the case is to be filed, the name of the defendant, the alleged offence and the potential penalty. The indictment is then transmitted, together with the case-file, to the appropriate court. The judge to whom the case is assigned notes on the indictment, which is subsequently served on the defendant, the time when the case will be formally opened.
The case is, according to Article 121, formally opened at a court sitting during which the Criminal Court makes the indictment and other documents available to the defendant. If the defendant makes a clear confession at this stage, the case will be adjudicated there and then. Otherwise, he must be given the opportunity to adduce evidence and present a defence, in writing or orally, with the assistance of counsel if appointed.
It is for the Public Prosecutor to determine whether the case warrants an adversarial procedure as set out in Articles 131 to 136. If so, the prosecution will appear before the Criminal Court judge. According to Article 130 such a procedure is to be followed if:
When the prosecution does not appear the judge must, in accordane with the general rule contained in Article 75, investigate ex officio and independently, all the facts of and issues in the case, even if the prosecution has already investigated them and prepared reports thereon. The judge must also consider all factors relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused and all mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Once the investigation is completed and the defendant, or his counsel, has submitted his evidence and written observations, the judge determines the case on the basis of all the evidence.
An appeal against a conviction by the Criminal Court lies to the Supreme Court. The Public Prosecutor must appear on an appeal, even if he did not do so before the Criminal Court.
The Supreme Court is empowered to review questions of both fact and law. According to Article 185, it may annul the entire proceedings or, alternatively, the judgment of the Criminal Court if it finds that serious errors occurred in the conduct of the case at first instance. In that event, the case may be referred back, in whole or in part, to the lower court for fresh proceedings.
Under Article 171, a defendant may, with leave of the Public Prosecutor, file a summary appeal with the Supreme Court against a refusal by a Criminal Court judge to withdraw. In the absence of such leave, it is possible for the defendant, in an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, to ask for the Criminal Court proceedings to be annulled on the ground that the judge should have withdrawn.
Article 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 85/1936) which, according to Article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applies also to criminal cases, provides that a judge shall withdraw in the following circumstances:
A revised Code of Criminal Procedure is expected to enter into force on 1 July 1992. Article 123 of the Bill provides that if the prosecutor does not appear at a court sitting, the case must be adjourned.
In his application (no. 13778/88) lodged with the Commission on 19 November 1987, Mr Thorgeir Thorgeirson alleged violations of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3(c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c) (right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal and right to defend oneself) and Article 10 (art. 10) (right to freedom of expression) of the Convention as a result of the defamation proceedings instituted against him and his subsequent conviction.
On 14 March 1990 the Commission declared admissible the complaints concerning:
At the hearing on 22 January 1992, the Government invited the Court to hold that, as submitted in their memorial of 16 September 1991, there had been no violation of the Convention in the present case.
Mr Thorgeir Thorgeirson alleged that he had not received a hearing by an "impartial tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:
This claim was contested by the Government and was not accepted by the Commission.
It should be recalled that the Court’s task is not to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (see, amongst other authorities, the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 45).
The existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (ibid., para. 46).
As to the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (ibid., para. 47); the applicant has adduced no evidence to suggest that the judge in question was personally biased.
Under the objective test, it must be determined whether, quite apart from the judge’s personal conduct, there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to his impartiality. In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance. What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and above all, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused. Accordingly, any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw.
The Court notes that in the present case the Reykjavik Criminal Court held twelve sittings between 10 September 1985 and 16 June 1986. The Public Prosecutor was absent from the following six sittings which were devoted to the matters indicated:
It can be seen from the foregoing that, at those sittings at which the Public Prosecutor was absent, the Reykjavik Criminal Court was not called upon to conduct any investigation into the merits of the case, let alone to assume any functions which might have been fulfilled by the prosecutor had he been present. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that such fears as the applicant may have had, on account of the prosecutor’s absence, as regards the Reykjavik Court’s lack of impartiality can be held to be justified.
Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
Mr Thorgeir Thorgeirson claimed that he had been a victim of a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, which is worded as follows:
The Court considers - and this was not disputed - that the applicant’s conviction and sentence for defamation by the Reykjavik Criminal Court on 16 June 1986, as upheld by the Supreme Court on 20 October 1987 (see paragraphs 24-25 and 27 above), constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. Such an interference entails a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) unless it was "prescribed by law", had an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2) and was "necessary in a democratic society" for the aforesaid aim or aims.
The applicant, referring to the dissenting opinion of a member of the Supreme Court in his case (see paragraph 28 above), submitted that Article 108 of the Penal Code, as interpreted in the light of the constitutional right to freedom of expression, could not provide a proper basis for his conviction.
However, the Court notes that the manner in which the Reykjavik Criminal Court and, subsequently, the majority of the Supreme Court (see paragraphs 24 and 27 above) interpreted and applied that Article in the present case was not excluded by its wording (see paragraph 31 above) and was, moreover, supported by precedent (see paragraph 32 above). Above all, it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, amongst many other authorities, the Kruslin v. France judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 21, para. 29). Consequently, the Court agrees with the Government and the Commission that the interference was "prescribed by law".
It was not disputed that the applicant’s conviction and sentence were aimed at protecting the "reputation ... of others" and thus had an aim that is legitimate under this provision.
In contesting the view of the applicant and the Commission that the interference complained of was not "necessary in a democratic society", the Government made submissions that fall into two groups, one relating to questions of general principle and the other relating to the specific circumstances of the case.
The submissions in the first group may be summarised as follows.
With regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the Government made the following submissions.
The Court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society; subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 (art. 10), is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established (see the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, para. 59).
On the questions of general principle raised by the Government, the Court observes that there is no warrant in its case-law for distinguishing, in the manner suggested by the Government, between political discussion and discussion of other matters of public concern. Their submission which seeks to restrict the right to freedom of expression on the basis of the recognition in Article 10 (art. 10) that the exercise thereof "carries with it duties and responsibilities" fails to appreciate that such exercise can be restricted only on the conditions provided for in the second paragraph of that Article (art. 10-2).
As regards the specific circumstances of the case, the Court is unable to accept the Government’s argument that the statements in the applicant’s articles lacked an objective and factual basis.
The Court is also not convinced by the Government’s contention that the principal aim of the applicant’s articles was to damage the reputation of the Reykjavik police as a whole.
The articles bore, as was not in fact disputed, on a matter of serious public concern. It is true that both articles were framed in particularly strong terms. However, having regard to their purpose and the impact which they were designed to have, the Court is of the opinion that the language used cannot be regarded as excessive.
Finally, the Court considers that the conviction and sentence were capable of discouraging open discussion of matters of public concern.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court has come to the conclusion that the reasons advanced by the Government do not suffice to show that the interference complained of was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It was therefore not "necessary in a democratic society".
Accordingly, there was a violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Mr Thorgeir Thorgeirson sought just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) according to which:
The applicant claimed 875,250 Icelandic crowns for his own work on the case over seven years, which he said had occupied forty-one days of his spare time per year.
The applicant sought 2,020,200 Icelandic crowns as compensation for loss of earnings (24,050 crowns per month during the years 1984 to 1991) resulting from his "dissident’s status".
The applicant claimed in respect of costs and expenses:
As to items (a) and (b), the Government expressed their willingness to pay a suitable amount, to be assessed by the Court on the basis of particulars supplied by the applicant. In their view, item (c) was reasonable.
The Court accepts the claims under headings (a), (b) and (c). Taking account of the Court’s case-law in this field as well as the relevant legal aid payments made to the applicant by the Council of Europe, the Court considers that he is entitled to be reimbursed, for costs and expenses, the sum of 530,000 Icelandic crowns.