Information Note on the Court’s case-law 204

February 2017

Selmani and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - 67259/14

Judgment 9.2.2017 [Section I]

Article 6

Constitutional proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Public hearing

Oral hearing

Absence of oral hearing in proceedings before Constitutional Court: Article 6 applicable ; violation

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of e xpression

Forcible removal of journalists from press gallery of Parliament: violation

Facts – The applicants were journalists covering a parliamentary debate when a commotion, provoked by a group of MPs, broke out, triggering the intervention of security staff. When the applicants refused to comply with an order to vacate the gallery, they were forcibly removed. The Constitutional Court, without holding an oral hearing, found that the security staff had considered that the journalists needed to be moved for their own protection.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicants complained under Artic le 6 of the lack of an oral hearing before the Constitutional Court and, under Article 10, about their forcible removal from the Parliament gallery.

Law – Article 6

(a) Applicability – Notwithstanding the absence of any objection by the Government, the Court considered it necessary to address the issue of the applicability of Article 6. The domestic law recognised the right of accredited journalists to report from the Parliament galle ry. Such reporting was necessary for the applicants to exercise their profession and to inform the public. In such circumstances the Court considered that the right to report from the Parliament gallery, which fell within the applicants’ freedom of express ion, was a civil right for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention.

(b) Merits – The applicants’ case was examined before the Constitutional Court, acting as a court of first and only instance. Its findings regarding the necessity and proportionality of the impugned measure relied on issues of fact. Although the applicants’ removal from the Parliament gallery, as such, was not disputed by the parties, the Constitutional Court’s decision was based on facts which the applicant contested and which were re levant to the outcome of the case. Those issues were neither technical nor purely legal. The applicants had therefore been entitled to an oral hearing and the Constitutional Court had not given any reasons why it considered that a hearing was not necessary .

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 10: The central issue was whether the interference complained of was necessary in a democratic society. The disorder in the parliamentary chamber and the way in which the authorities handled it were matters of legitimate public interest. The media therefore had the task of imparting information on the event and the public had the right to receive such information.

The media played a crucial role in providing information on the authorities’ handling of public d emonstrations and the containment of disorder. Any attempt to remove journalists from the scene of demonstrations had to be subject to strict scrutiny. That principle applied even more so when journalists exercised their right to impart information to the public about the behaviour of elected representatives in Parliament and about the manner in which authorities handled disorder that occurred during parliamentary sessions.

During the disturbance in the chamber, the applicants were passive bystanders who w ere simply doing their work and observing the events. They did not pose any threat to public safety, order in the chamber or otherwise. Their removal entailed adverse effects that instantaneously prevented them from obtaining first-hand and direct knowledg e based on their personal experience of the events unfolding in Parliament. Those were important elements in the exercise of the applicants’ journalistic functions, of which the public should not have been deprived.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Art icle 41: EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage

(See Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], 11882/10, 20 October 2015, Information Note 189 )

© 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