Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192

January 2016

De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France - 29313/10

Judgment 21.1.2016 [Section V]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom to impart information

Conviction of television company for defamation for broadcasting report implicating Saudi Prince in attacks of 11 September 2001: violation

Facts – The first applicant was chairman of the national television chann el France 3, now succeeded in its rights by the corporation France Télévisions, the second applicant. In September 2006 France 3 broadcast a documentary which investigated why there had still been no trial five years after the attacks of 11 September 2001. It focused on the complaint lodged by families of the victims and the proceedings against over one hundred individuals and entities suspected of having assisted and funded al-Qaeda. As the victims’ lawyers were seeking the prosecution of those who had hel ped to finance the attacks, the journalist looked at the background of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Prince Turki Al Faisal was among the individuals interviewed, being named in the complaint by the victims’ relatives, who accused him of having assisted an d financed the Taliban when he had been head of the intelligence service in Saudi Arabia. In December 2006 the Prince brought defamation proceedings in the Criminal Court against the first applicant, as director of the television channel France 3, as well as the journalist who had produced the documentary, and against the company France 3 in so far as it was civilly liable.

In November 2007 the Criminal Court found the first applicant and the journalist guilty of public defamation of an individual, namely P rince Turki Al Faisal, who had joined the proceedings as a civil party. It sentenced each of them to a fine of EUR 1,000 and ordered them jointly to pay a token euro in damages to the Prince. By way of additional reparation it ordered the broadcasting of a legal news item on France 3, within fifteen days from the date on which the judgment became final. It also held France 3 civilly liable. The judgment was upheld by the higher courts.

Law – Article 10: The judgment against the applicants had constituted an interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of others. The impugned documentary certainly concerned a subject of general interest and Prince Turki Al Faisal held an eminent position in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. With those circumstances in mind, the State’s margin of appreciation was particularly reduced. Moreover, even though the documentary had mentioned certain precise facts, the impugned statements had amounted more to value judgments than to mere statements of fact. The factual basis of those value judgments was sufficient. In addition, the journalist had distanced herself from the various testimony and had consulted m any of the protagonists, including Prince Turki Al Faisal himself. His statements had not been distorted or quoted inaccurately. Consequently, the manner in which the subject had been dealt with did not contravene the standards of responsible journalism. L astly, the relatively moderate amount of the fines did not suffice to justify the interference with the first applicant’s right to freedom of expression or to negate the potential deterrent effect of the sanction.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Artic le 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage; EUR 10,500 jointly, plus EUR 1,000 to the first applicant, in respect of pecuniary damage.

© 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