Tokens: In
sum
,
I
agree
with
the
final
judgment
of
the
domestic
courts
:
I
find
that
the
impugned
statement
,
which
the
applicant
complained
had
injured
his
reputation
,
was
an
expression
of
an
opinion
,
a
“
value
judgment
”
based
on
a
sequence
of
relevant
events
which
provided
a
sufficient
factual
basis
.
In
my
view
,
the
interpretation
of
this
statement
adopted
by
the
applicant
and
the
majority
in
this
case
is
exaggerated
and
unrealistic
.
It
seems
to
me
that
it
offended
the
applicant
but
did
not
exceed
the
limits
of
freedom
of
expression
guaranteed
by
Article
10
of
the
Convention
.
In
this
connection
I
must
repeat
the
classic
statement
about
freedom
of
speech
,
initiated
in
the
Handyside
v.
the
United
Kingdom
case
(
Series
A
no
.
24
,
p.
23
,
§
49
):
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O