European Court of Human Rights
21 February 2017
Facts
The applicant published a regional newspaper whose political affiliation was specified on the front page. During the 2007 election campaign for the lower chamber of Parliament, the newspaper published several articles criticising a candidate in those elections. The regional electoral committee examined the articles and concluded that, in breach of the relevant domestic provisions, they contained elements of electoral campaigning which had not been paid for from the official campaign fund of any party as required. The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence and fined.
Complaint
The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about the classification of the material it published as “election campaigning” and the fine imposed.
Court’s ruling
Free elections and freedom of expression, particularly freedom of political debate, formed the bedrock of any democratic society. The two rights were inter-related and operated to reinforce each other. It was particularly important that in the period preceding an election, opinions and information of all kinds were permitted to circulate freely.
It had not been substantiated that the impugned publications were political advertisements, rather than ordinary journalistic work. The applicant had clearly specified on the newspaper’s front page its formal political affiliation. There was no reason to consider that any candidates or political parties were at the origin of the impugned articles.
It was difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether the content in relation to a candidate should be perceived as a mere negative comment or whether it had a campaigning goal. The domestic regulative framework restricted the activity of the print media on the basis of a criterion that was vague and conferred a very wide discretion on public authorities that were to interpret and apply it. It had not been convincingly demonstrated that the media should be subjected to rigorous requirements of impartiality, neutrality and equality of treatment during an election period. The public watchdog role of the press was no less pertinent at election time. That role encompassed an independent exercise of freedom of the press on the basis of free editorial choice aimed at imparting information and ideas on subjects of public interest.
By subjecting the expression of comments to the regulation of campaigning and by prosecuting the applicant with reference to this regulation, there had been an interference with the applicant’s editorial choice to publish a critical text and to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest. No sufficiently compelling reasons had been shown to justify the prosecution and conviction. The Court found a violation of Article 10.