Information Note on the Court’s case-law 27

February 2001

Tammer v. Estonia - 41205/98

Judgment 6.2.2001 [Section I]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Conviction of journalist for using insulting words in relation to the wife of a well-know politician: no violation

Facts : The applicant, a journalist and editor of a daily newspaper, published an interview with another journalist who had previou sly published an account of the life of the wife of a prominent politician. She had been the politician’s assistant when he was Prime Minister and later Minister of the Interior, and had had his child while he was still married to his first wife; she had l eft the child’s upbringing to her parents. She had referred to these matters in her memoirs. In the newspaper interview, the applicant described the woman as a marriage breaker ( abielulõhkuja ) and an unfit and careless mother ( rongaema ). She brought a priv ate prosecution against the applicant, who was convicted of insulting her and fined 220 kroons (EEK). His appeals were dismissed.

Law : Article 10 – While Article 130 of the Criminal Code is worded in rather general terms, it cannot be regarded as so vague and imprecise as to lack the quality of “law” and the interference was therefore "prescribed by law". As to the necessity of the interference, the domestic courts found the use of the words “ rongaema ” and “ abielulõhkuja ” to be offensive, considering that t hey constituted value judgments in abusive terms and that their use was not necessary in stating a negative opinion. Moreover, it is not established that the use of the terms in relation to the woman's private life was justified by considerations of public concern or that they bore on a matter of general importance. The domestic courts properly balanced the various interests involved and, taking into account the State's margin of appreciation, they were entitled to interfere with the exercise of the applica nt’s right. The amount of the fine imposed was limited and the applicant’s conviction and sentence were not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued; the reasons given by the domestic courts were sufficient and relevant to justify the interference, w hich could reasonably be considered necessary in a democratic society.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

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

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes