CASE OF PRAGER AND OBERSCHLICK v. AUSTRIA

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 15 April 1994, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 15974/90) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by two Austrian nationals, Mr Michael Prager and Mr Gerhard Oberschlick, on 21 December 1989.
The Commission ’ s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Austria recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 10 and 14 (art. 10, art. 14) of the Convention.
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30). The President of the Court gave the lawyer in question leave to use the German language (Rule 27 para. 3).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr F. Matscher, the elected judge of Austrian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 26 April 1994, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr C. Russo, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr F. Bigi and Mr J. Makarczyk (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Austrian Government ("the Government"), the applicants ’ lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence the Registrar received the Government ’ s memorial on 16 September 1994 and the applicants ’ memorial on 6 October. On 25 October the Commission produced various documents, as requested by the Registrar on the President ’ s instructions. On 28 October the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would make his submissions at the hearing.
5. On 25 August 1994 the President had authorised, under Rule 37 para. 2, two international human rights organisations, "Article 19" and" Interights ", to submit written observations on specific aspects of the case. Their observations reached the registry on 10 October.
6. In accordance with the President ’ s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 November 1994. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
Mr W. Okresek, Head of the International Affairs Division,
Constitutional Service, Federal Chancellery, Agent,
Mrs E. Bertagnoli, Human Rights Division,
International Law Department, Federal Ministry of
Mr G. Lansky, Rechtsanwalt, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Schermers, Mr Lansky, Mr Prager and Mr Okresek.
7. Mr Prager and Mr Oberschlick are journalists and live in Vienna. The latter is the publisher ( Medieninhaber ) of the periodical Forum.
8. On 15 March 1987 Forum no. 397/398 published an article by Mr Prager entitled "Danger! Harsh judges!" ( Achtung! Scharfe Richter!). The article, which was thirteen pages long, contained criticism of the judges sitting in the Austrian criminal courts. He gave as sources for his article, in addition to his own experience of attending a number of trials, statements of lawyers and legal correspondents and surveys carried out by university researchers.
After a short summary of his main contention, followed by a general introduction, he described in detail the attitude of nine members of the Vienna Regional Criminal Court ( Landesgericht für Strafsachen ), including that of Judge J.
9. The summary was worded as follows:
"They treat each accused at the outset as if he had already been convicted. They have persons who have travelled from abroad arrested in court on the ground that there is a danger that they will abscond. They ask people who are unconscious after fainting whether they accept their sentence. Protestations of innocence are greeted on their part with a mere shrug of the shoulders and attract for their authors the heaviest sentence because they have not confessed. - Some Austrian criminal court judges are capable of anything; all of them are capable of a lot: there is a pattern to all this."
10. In the general introduction the journalist attacked in the first place the judges who, according to him, for years exercised absolute power "in the domain of their court", exploiting the smallest weaknesses or peculiarities in the accused. The susceptibility of judges was capable of turning the courtroom into a "battlefield"; a convicted person who caused even the slightest offence to the self-esteem of a judge risked, through the effect of the latter ’ s so-called unfettered discretion to assess the evidence, an extra year of imprisonment or losing the possibility of having his sentence suspended.
Mr Prager then criticised judges who acquitted only as a last resort, who handed down much heavier sentences than most of their colleagues, who treated lawyers like miscreants, who harassed and humiliated the accused to an excessive degree, who extended remand detention beyond the maximum duration of the sentence risked and who disregarded the jury ’ s verdict when they did not agree with it. He maintained that their independence served only to inflate inordinately their self-importance and enabled them to apply the law in all its cruelty and irrationality, without any scruples and without anyone being able to oppose them.
Mr Prager continued by recounting his personal experiences from meeting judges and visiting courtrooms, referring in this connection to the "arrogant bullying" ( menschenverachtende Schikanen ) of Judge J.
3. The description of the judges
11. The article also gave a description of a number of individual judges. That of Judge J. read as follows:
[J.], addressing the Vienna lawyer [K.], counsel for the defence, some years ago: `Keep it short. I ’ ve already reached my decision. ’
[J.]: a judge who does not allow probation officers to sit down in his office. In fact he refuses to speak to them.
[J.]: a judge who once laid a complaint against a prostitute because he had already paid her when she and her pimp vanished without anything having happened. She probably thought that her client was too drunk to notice the difference. [J.] however lay in wait and took down the car ’ s registration number.
[J.] ’ s complaint resulted in the prostitute ’ s conviction - and disciplinary proceedings for himself, which proved really effective because the smutty story, which at least says a lot for [J.] ’ s pigheadedness, got into the newspapers.
Despite all this he almost became a public prosecutor. But the press revealed a story in which his name cropped up again, this time in connection with criminal proceedings and the suspicion of having given legal advice without due authorisation ( Winkelschreiberei ). Two men, Mr L. and his son, were accused of having obtained money from people wishing to buy flats in old buildings, by means of fraudulent contracts. When it became clear that the contracts had been drawn up by [J.], the prosecution changed tactics: suddenly it was no longer the contracts that were fraudulent, but the intention which lay behind their use.
[J.] remained a judge instead of becoming a public prosecutor. The editors of Kurier [an Austrian daily newspaper] now regret this because a public prosecutor is less dangerous.
In September Profil [an Austrian magazine] showed why. In his capacity as an investigating judge, [J.] had left a drug addict in detention on remand for over one year, although the remand prisoner ’ s officially appointed defence counsel repeatedly told him that he was mistaken about the quantity of drugs involved and that the relevant sentence would be from four to six months ’ imprisonment.
Notwithstanding this, rather than forwarding the final plea of nullity to the Supreme Court, as he was required to do by the regulations, he transmitted it to the Court of Appeal and to the President of the Court of Appeal, who took a further three months to consider whether the man should be released from prison and whether any mistakes had been made by the investigating judge.
A photocopier would have spared the prisoner at least those three months. Released at the beginning of March by the new judge to whom the case-file had been forwarded by the Supreme Court judges, the case having at last been brought before them, the prisoner, who had spent thirteen months in prison, was finally sentenced to five months ’ imprisonment at the end of March.
The two defence lawyers appointed by the authorities to act for [J.] ’ s victim calculate that the lawyers ’ fees alone up to that date amounted to 85,000 schillings.
All this does not seem to have left Judge [J.] unscathed. The tall, bearded judge has a deep, resonant voice. Yet throughout the trial of Marianne O., the `holiday-thief ’, a persistent tick was to be seen on the face of Judge [S.] ’ s colleague on the Bench.
Then the jury ’ s verdict was suspended and defence counsel [G.] found himself facing disciplinary proceedings."
12. On 23 April 1987 Judge J. brought an action against Mr Prager for defamation ( üble Nachrede, Article 111 of the Austrian Criminal Code - see paragraph 18 below). In addition to the seizure of the relevant Forum issue and the publication of extracts of the judgment, he sought, inter alia, damages from the publisher and an order imposing a fine on the latter jointly and severally with the author and requiring them to pay the legal costs (sections 33 to 36 of the Media Act - Mediengesetz, see paragraph 19 below).
13. On 11 May 1987 the applicants challenged the Vienna Regional Criminal Court and the Vienna Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht ). On 5 August the Supreme Court ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) dismissed the challenge concerning the Court of Appeal. On 17 September it allowed that directed against the Vienna Regional Criminal Court and transferred the case to the Eisenstadt Regional Court.
14. On 11 October 1988 the Eisenstadt Regional Court found Mr Prager guilty of having defamed Judge J. by passages in the impugned article, which were cited as follows:
(1) "They treat each accused at the outset as if he had already been convicted."
(2) "Some Austrian criminal court judges are capable of anything."
(3) "Nothing was comparable to ... Judge [J.] ’ s arrogant bullying."
(5) "Despite all this he almost became a public prosecutor. But the press revealed a story in which his name cropped up again, this time in connection with criminal proceedings and the suspicion of having given legal advice without due authorisation. Two men, Mr L. and his son, were accused of having obtained money from people wishing to buy flats in old buildings, by means of fraudulent contracts. When it became clear that the contracts had been drawn up by [J.], the prosecution changed tactics: suddenly it was no longer the contracts that were fraudulent, but the intention which lay behind their use.
[J.] remained a judge instead of becoming a public prosecutor. The editors of Kurier now regret this because a public prosecutor is less dangerous."
Applying Article 111 of the Criminal Code, the Regional Court sentenced Mr Prager to 120 day fines at the rate of 30 schillings (ATS) per day and to sixty days ’ imprisonment in the event of non-payment. Mr Oberschlick was ordered to pay Judge J. damages of ATS 30,000 and was declared jointly and severally liable with the first applicant in respect of the fine and the legal costs (sections 6 (1) and 35 of the Media Act). Finally, the court ordered the confiscation of the remaining stocks of the relevant issue of Forum and the publication of extracts from its judgment.
15. In the grounds of its judgment the Regional Court noted in the first place that the objective elements of the offence of defamation were made out. Of the contested passages, nos. 2 and 4 openly attributed to the plaintiff a despicable character or attitude ( eine verächtliche Eigenschaft oder Gesinnung ), while nos. 1, 3 and 5 accused him of conduct that was dishonourable and dishonest and that could objectively expose him to contempt or denigrate him in the public eye ( ein unehrenhaftes und gegen die guten Sitten verstoßendes Verhalten, das objektiv geeignet ist, ihn in der öffentlichen Meinung verächtlich zu machen oder herabzusetzen ). In short, confronted with such wholesale criticism, an impartial reader had little choice but to suspect that the plaintiff had behaved basely ( ehrloses Verhalten ) and that he was of despicable character ( verächtliche Charaktereigenschaften ), and the author had, moreover, been perfectly well aware of this.
The Regional Court then examined Mr Prager ’ s applications for the production of documents and testimony intended to establish the truth of his statements and the journalistic care that he had exercised in writing the article. The court took the view that only passages nos. 1, 3 and 5 were susceptible to this type of proof, as the other statements were value-judgments. After considering the matter, it decided that none of the evidence offered could sufficiently substantiate the allegations in issue.
Thus statement no. 1, according to which Judge J. treated every accused at the outset as if he had already been convicted, was not proved merely by the fact that the judge in question had, in a given case, asked defence counsel to be brief, as he had already made up his mind. Similarly, the three decisions of Judge J. reported by Mr Prager in support of statement no. 3 were not sufficient to bear out the allegation that the judge had adopted bullying tactics. None of these decisions disclosed the slightest intention to cause unnecessary suffering. Lastly, the accusations made in passage no. 5 had been definitively refuted by a disciplinary decision of the Vienna Court of Appeal of 6 December 1982. The two files whose production the applicant had requested could not alter the position, since the first contained no information on the personality of Judge J. and the second, relating to the judge ’ s candidature for the office of public prosecutor, had to remain confidential.
In the court ’ s view, Mr Prager had also failed to prove that he had written the article in issue with the care required of journalists by section 29 (1) of the Media Act (see paragraph 19 below). Not content with having denied Judge J. an opportunity to answer the accusations levelled against him, his research had been conducted in a very superficial manner; moreover, he had himself admitted that he had not attended any trials presided over by Judge J., that he had reproduced the content of old newspaper articles without checking their accuracy and had represented as true allegations based on hearsay.
16. On 26 June 1989 the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld this judgment, but reduced the damages to ATS 20,000 (see paragraph 14 above). It held in particular that the Regional Court had in no way infringed the rights of the defence by dismissing as immaterial the evidence that Mr Prager had sought to adduce. This situation had arisen because of the way in which he had formulated his criticism. It had been so comprehensive and general that it had been impossible to specify evidence capable of establishing its accuracy. The case could, moreover, be distinguished from the case of Lingens v. Austria (judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103) in that it concerned the affirmation of various facts rather than the expression of value-judgments. As regards the care that journalists are required to exercise in pursuing their profession, it must obey the rule" audiatur et altera pars".
17. The remaining copies of the issue in question were never in fact seized (see paragraph 14 above).
18. Article 111 of the Criminal Code provides:
"1. Anyone who in such a way that it may be perceived by a third party accuses another of possessing a contemptible character or attitude or of behaviour contrary to honour or morality and of such a nature as to make him contemptible or otherwise lower him in public esteem shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine ...
2. Anyone who commits this offence in a printed document, by broadcasting or otherwise in such a way as to make the defamation accessible to a broad section of the public shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine ...
3. The person making the statement shall not be punished if it is proved to be true. As regards the offence defined in paragraph 1, he shall also not be liable if circumstances are established which gave him sufficient reason to assume that the statement was true."
"Evidence of the truth and of good faith shall not be admissible unless the person making the statement pleads the correctness of the statement or his good faith ..."
Under Article 114 para. 1 "conduct of the kind mentioned in Article 111 ... is justified if it constitutes the fulfilment of a legal duty or the exercise of a right". Under paragraph 2 of the same provision "a person who is forced for special reasons to make an allegation within the meaning of Article 111 ... in the particular form and manner in which it was made, shall not be guilty of an offence, unless that allegation is untrue and he could have realised this if he had exercised due care ...".
19. Section 6 of the Media Act provides for the strict liability of the publisher in cases of defamation; the victim can thus claim damages from him. Furthermore, the publisher may be declared to be liable jointly and severally with the person convicted of a media offence for the fines imposed and for the costs of the proceedings (section 35).
The person defamed may request the forfeiture of the publication by which a media offence has been committed (section 33). Under section 36 he may also request the immediate seizure of such a publication if section 33 is likely to be applied subsequently, unless the adverse consequences of seizure would be disproportionate to the legal interest to be protected by this measure. Seizure shall not be ordered if that interest can instead be protected by the publication of information that criminal proceedings have been instituted (section 37). Finally, the victim may request the publication of the judgment in so far as this appears necessary for the information of the public (section 34).
Section 29 (1) provides, inter alia, that publishers and journalists will avoid conviction of an offence in respect of information susceptible to proof as to its accuracy, not only if they provide such proof, but also if there was a major public interest in publishing the information and reasons which, in exercising proper journalistic care, justified giving credence to the statement in question.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
20. In their application (no. 15974/90) lodged with the Commission on 21 December 1989, Mr Prager and Mr Oberschlick complained that their convictions constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention and that the order confiscating the remaining copies of the periodical amounted to discrimination prohibited under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 10 (art. 14+10). They also alleged a violation of Articles 6 and 13 (art. 6, art. 13) of the Convention.
21. On 29 March 1993 the Commission declared the complaints concerning Articles 10 and 14 (art. 10, art. 14) admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. In its report of 28 February 1994 (Article 31) (art. 31), the Commission expressed the opinion by fifteen votes to twelve that there had been no violation of Article 10 (art. 10) and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 10 (art. 14+10).
The full text of the Commission ’ s opinion and of the two dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment [3].
22. In their memorial the Government requested the Court:
(a) to declare inadmissible the complaints of the second applicant based on a violation of Articles 14 and 10 of the Convention taken together (art. 14+10) and Article 10 (art. 10) taken in isolation for respectively failure to exhaust domestic remedies and lack of status of victim;
(b) to hold that the applicants have not been the victims of a breach of Article 10 (art. 10).
23. The applicants invited the Court to find a violation of Article 10 (art. 10).
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 (art. 10) OF THE CONVENTION
24. The applicants complained of a violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, which is worded as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article (art. 10) shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
A. The Government ’ s preliminary objection
25. The Government contended, as they had done unsuccessfully before the Commission, that Mr Oberschlick could not claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (art. 25-1) of the Convention. Inasmuch as he had simply published an article that he had not written himself, he could not be said to have exercised his own freedom of expression. In addition he had not sustained any pecuniary damage as a result of the proceedings brought against him: he had not had to pay anything, as joint debtor, in respect of the fine and the procedural costs and he could claim reimbursement from Mr Prager for any other expenditure incurred in connection with the convictions (see paragraphs 14-15 above).
26. By "victim" Article 25 (art. 25) means the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue, a violation being conceivable even in the absence of any detriment; the latter is relevant only to the application of Article 50 (art. 50) (see, inter alia, the Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 20, para. 47).
27. Like the Commission and the applicants, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings initiated by Judge J. ’ s complaint were directed at both Mr Prager and Mr Oberschlick. The latter was personally convicted for having published an article in his periodical (see paragraph 14 above). He was therefore directly affected by the decisions of the Eisenstadt Regional Court and the Vienna Court of Appeal. He can, accordingly, claim to be a victim of the alleged violation.
In conclusion, the Government ’ s preliminary objection falls to be dismissed.
28. It is not in dispute that Mr Prager ’ s conviction for defamation and the other measures of which the applicants complained amounted to an "interference" with the exercise by them of their freedom of expression.
That interference infringed Article 10 (art. 10) unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2) and was "necessary in a democratic society" to attain such aim or aims.
29. In the applicants ’ submission, Article 111 of the Austrian Criminal Code and section 29 of the Media Act could not be regarded as "law" within the meaning of the Convention. In so far as these provisions left it solely to the complainant to determine which passages of a text were to be the subject of the proceedings and prevented the accused from adducing evidence of material facts, their application did not afford a sufficient degree of foreseeability.
30. In several earlier cases, the Court found that Article 111 of the Criminal Code had the characteristics of "law" (see the following judgments: Lingens, cited above, p. 24, para. 36; Oberschlick v. Austria, 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 24, para. 54; Schwabe v. Austria, 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-B, pp. 31-32, para. 25). Nor is there anything to warrant a different conclusion with regard to section 29 of the Media Act. The uncertainties linked to the application in this instance of these two provisions did not exceed what the applicants could expect, if need be after having sought appropriate advice (see, mutatis mutandis, the Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, pp. 18-19, para. 46).
2. Whether the aim pursued was legitimate
31. Like the Commission, the Court sees no reason to doubt that the decisions in issue were intended, as the Government affirmed, to protect the reputation of others, in this case Judge J., and to maintain the authority of the judiciary, which are legitimate aims for the purposes of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2).
3. Necessity of the interference
32. The applicants argued that the convictions were in no way justified. By giving a brief character-sketch of various representative members of the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, Mr Prager had merely raised certain serious problems confronting the Austrian system of criminal justice. In this type of magazine, recourse to caricature and exaggeration was common practice as a means of attracting the readers ’ attention and increasing their awareness of the issue dealt with. The author had on no account abused this technique in this instance, especially in view of the fact that his article had appeared in a periodical for intellectuals capable of discernment. Moreover, of the nine judges described, only Judge J. had laid a complaint.
At the same time Mr Prager and Mr Oberschlick criticised the proceedings conducted against them. They had been denied adequate means to defend themselves. Judge J. had identified on his own, and without his choice being open to challenge, the passages of the article liable to give rise to a conviction; he had thus isolated various general sentences and expressions from their context - in particular passages nos. 1 and 2 (see paragraph 14 above) - and had incorrectly presented them as being directed against himself. The Regional Court had not only operated a flawed distinction between the allegations (passages nos. 1, 3 and 5) and the value-judgments (passages nos. 2 and 4), but it had also improperly denied the applicants the right to prove various events capable of establishing that the former were true and that the latter were fair comment (see paragraph 15 above). As regards the facts in respect of which the court had allowed evidence to be adduced, it had, in breach of the law, placed the onus of showing that they were true facts on the accused. This was an approach that would ultimately deter journalists from taking an interest in the system of justice.
Finally, it was incorrect to claim that Mr Prager had not exercised due journalistic care in writing his article. On the contrary, he had based his text on research conducted over a period of six months during which he had contacted lawyers, judges and academics. In addition, for three and a half months he had attended hearings in the Vienna Courthouse on a daily basis.
33. The Government maintained that, far from stimulating debate on the functioning of the Austrian system of justice, the relevant extracts of the article had only contained personal insults directed at Judge J., despite the fact that the latter had done nothing to provoke Mr Prager. They did not therefore merit the enhanced protection accorded to the expression of political opinions. The author had failed to prove the truth of his affirmations quite simply because they were unfounded. The opinions expressed by Mr Prager could not qualify for total immunity just because they were not susceptible to verification as to their accuracy. Penalties had been imposed in respect of those statements because they had overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism. Mr Prager could not plead good faith in his defence as he had neglected the most elementary rules of journalism, in particular those which require a journalist to verify personally the truth of information obtained and to give the persons concerned by such information the opportunity to comment on it.
34. The Court reiterates that the press plays a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law. Although it must not overstep certain bounds set, inter alia, for the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart - in a way consistent with its duties and responsibilities - information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, the Castells v. Spain judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 23, para. 43).
This undoubtedly includes questions concerning the functioning of the system of justice, an institution that is essential for any democratic society. The press is one of the means by which politicians and public opinion can verify that judges are discharging their heavy responsibilities in a manner that is in conformity with the aim which is the basis of the task entrusted to them.
Regard must, however, be had to the special role of the judiciary in society. As the guarantor of justice, a fundamental value in a law-governed State, it must enjoy public confidence if it is to be successful in carrying out its duties. It may therefore prove necessary to protect such confidence against destructive attacks that are essentially unfounded, especially in view of the fact that judges who have been criticised are subject to a duty of discretion that precludes them from replying.
35. The assessment of these factors falls in the first place to the national authorities, which enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in determining the existence and extent of the necessity of an interference with the freedom of expression. That assessment is, however, subject to a European supervision embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court (see, inter alia, the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 28).
36. In the Court ’ s opinion the classification of the passages in issue as value-judgments and allegations of fact comes within the ambit of that margin of appreciation.
Of the accusations levelled by those allegations, some were extremely serious. It is therefore hardly surprising that their author should be expected to explain himself. By maintaining that the Viennese judges "treat each accused at the outset as if he had already been convicted", or in attributing to Judge J. an "arrogant" and "bullying" attitude in the performance of his duties, the applicant had, by implication, accused the persons concerned of having, as judges, broken the law or, at the very least, of having breached their professional obligations. He had thus not only damaged their reputation, but also undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
37. The reason for Mr Prager ’ s failure to establish that his allegations were true or that his value-judgments were fair comment lies not so much in the way in which the court applied the law as in their general character; indeed it is that aspect that seems to have been at the origin of the penalties imposed. As the Commission pointed out, the evidence shows that the relevant decisions were not directed against the applicant ’ s use as such of his freedom of expression in relation to the system of justice or even the fact that he had criticised certain judges whom he had identified by name, but rather the excessive breadth of the accusations, which, in the absence of a sufficient factual basis, appeared unnecessarily prejudicial. Thus the Eisenstadt Regional Court stated in its judgment that "confronted with such wholesale criticism, an impartial reader had little choice but to suspect that the plaintiff had behaved basely and that he was of despicable character" (see paragraph 15 above).
Nor, in the Court ’ s view, could Mr Prager invoke his good faith or compliance with the ethics of journalism. The research that he had undertaken does not appear adequate to substantiate such serious allegations. In this connection it suffices to note that, on his own admission, the applicant had not attended a single criminal trial before Judge J. Furthermore he had not given the judge any opportunity to comment on the accusations levelled against him.
38. It is true that, subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), freedom of expression 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 the State or any section of the community (see, mutatis mutandis, the Castells judgment, cited above, p. 22, para. 42, and the Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi judgment, cited above, p. 17, para. 36). In addition, the Court is mindful of the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation.
However, regard being had to all the circumstances described above and to the margin of appreciation that is to be left to the Contracting States, the impugned interference does not appear to be disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It may therefore be held to have been "necessary in a democratic society".
39. In conclusion no violation of Article 10 (art. 10) has been established.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 10 (art. 14+10)
40. In their application to the Commission, Mr Prager and Mr Oberschlick also alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10 (art. 14+10) (see paragraph 20 above). They did not, however, raise this complaint before the Court and the Court does not consider it necessary to examine this issue of its own motion.
1. Dismisses unanimously the Government ’ s preliminary objection;