DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ

To my regret I am unable to follow the majority in this case as I do not consider that it has been established that Article 10 of the Convention was violated.

The applicant was ordered to pay damages for defamation in a civil procedure because of the four defamatory allegations which he had made in public about the Vice-Rector of his university, to the effect that there was a mafia-type organisation in the department led by the plaintiff.

In a case involving a conflict between the rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 10 of the Convention, where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court ’ s case law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08 , § 107, ECHR 2012).

While I agree with my colleagues that there are good reasons to depart from the analysis of the domestic courts in some respects (e.g. as regards the charge of plagiarism), I find that the judgment failed to set out any such reasons concerning a number of serious allegations. In particular, the applicant did not prove that the Vice-Rector had offered funding only to stations from which he could make personal gains and that he was involved in sabotaging scientific research, notably by destroying the applicant ’ s work. The domestic court did analyse the evidence that was presented to confirm these allegations of criminal activity, and there is nothing unreasonable in the finding that he had failed to prove those allegations. More importantly, the judgment discloses neither the inconsistencies nor the failure to take into account the criteria established by this Court which would have enabled it to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts.

[1] Castells v. Spain , 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236

[2] Colombani and Others v. France , no. 51279/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ V