Information Note on the Court’s case-law 51

March 2003

Lešník v. Slovakia - 35640/97

Judgment 11.3.2003 [Section IV]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Conviction for insulting prosecutor: no violation

Facts : The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to have criminal proceedings brought against H. The applicant subsequently wrote a letter to the District Prosecutor, P., in which he alleged that th e latter had been responsible for the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against H. and had unlawfully ordered the tapping of the applicant’s telephone. The Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that it had not been established that P. had or dered telephone tapping or otherwise acted unlawfully. The applicant then wrote to the General Prosecutor, complaining that P. had abused his authority and alleging that H. had paid money to have the proceedings against him discontinued. On P.’s petition, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for insulting a public prosecutor. The District Court issued a penal order convicting the applicant and imposing a suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment. The applicant challenged the order. The District Court again convicted him and imposed the same sentence. It considered that the applicant’s letters were defamatory and grossly offensive. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court, which found that the applicant had not subst antiated his allegations of bribery and unlawful behaviour. Law : Article 10 – The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the reputation and rights of P., with a view to permitting him to carry out his duties as a p ublic prosecutor without undue disturbance. As to the necessity of the interference, public prosecutors are civil servants who form part of the judicial machinery in the broad sense and it is in the general interest that they, like judicial officers, shoul d enjoy public confidence. While in a democratic society individuals are entitled to criticise the administration of justice and the officials involved in it, such criticism must be kept certain limits. In the present case, while certain statements made in the applicant’s letters as regards P.’s pofessional and personal qualities could be considered value judgments, the letters also made accusations of unlawful and abusive conduct and these were statements of fact which the domestic courts found to be unsub stantiated. The reasons given by the courts in that respect were therefore relevant and sufficient. The accusations were of a serious nature and were capable of insulting P., of affecting him in the performance of his duties and, in the case of the letter to the General Prosecutor, of damaging his reputation. The applicant was not prevented from using appropriate means to seek redress in respect of conduct which he considered unlawful. Although the sanction imposed on the applicant was not insignificant, it was at the lower end of the applicable scale. Taking into account the State’s margin of appreciation, the interference complained of was not disproportionate.

Conclusion : no violation (5 votes to 2).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights Thi s summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes