DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN, JOINED BY JUDGES HAJIYEV AND NICOLAOU

I am unable to agree with the majority view that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

This is a rather unusual case in that the alleged contempt of court stems from the wording of a procedural document.

In my view, nothing in the wording of the appeal went beyond the acceptable limits.

Admittedly, the exercise of the right to freedom of expression may be subject to limitations necessary for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The case-law cited in paragraph 47 concerns instances where applicants ’ statements have undoubtedly been grossly insulting. Judges in those cases had been described as “torturers in robes” and as “ridiculous”, and a prosecutor as having acted “in a state of complete intoxication.” It goes without saying that such statements cannot and should not be protected by Article 10 of the Convention.

In the case at hand, the applicant only described, albeit in strong words, what had happened during the hearing. His misgivings concerning the judge ’ s attitude during the hearing were part and parcel of his grounds of appeal and were characterised in legal terms under section 354, paragraph 2, subparagraphs 6 and 11, of the Civil Procedure Act.

In paragraph 42 of the judgment, the Court duly reiterates that it “must ascertain whether on the facts of the case a fair balance was struck between, on the one hand, the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and, on the other hand, the protection of the applicant ’ s freedom of expression”. The Court rightly adds in paragraph 44:

“In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against the applicant and the context in which they were made ... .[T]he Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts ” (emphasis added).

I disagree with the assessment of the facts.

The applicant ’ s statements in his appeal fell short of being insulting and hence the reasons given by the domestic courts in support of their decisions were, in my view, not “relevant and sufficient”.