RADIO FRANCE AND OTHERS v. FRANCE - 53984/00 [2007] ECHR 127 (30 March 2004)

RADIO FRANCE AND OTHERS v. FRANCE - 53984/00 [2007] ECHR 127 (30 March 2004)

The Court held that the interpretation of 'prior fixing' in section 93-3 of the 1982 Act, as applied to repeated live broadcasts, was consistent with the essence of the offence and reasonably foreseeable, thus not violating Article 7. The presumption of liability for publishing directors was found to be within reasonable limits and rebuttable, not infringing Article 6. The penalties and remedies imposed were considered proportionate and justified for the protection of reputation, not violating Article 10.

Citation
[2007] ECHR 127
Parties
Applicant Company: Radio France; Second Applicant: Michel Boyon; Third Applicant: Bertrand Gallicher; Respondent: French Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
30 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; no violation found.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Audiovisual Media Regulation, Presumption of Innocence, Strict Liability, Remedies for Defamation
Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Law Defamation Freedom of Expression Audiovisual Media Regulation Presumption of Innocence Strict Liability +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radio France

Applicant Company

Michel Boyon

Second Applicant

Bertrand Gallicher

Third Applicant

French Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal conviction of the applicants for defamation violated Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of liability under section 93-3 of the 1982 Act violated Article 6 (right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence)
  3. 3 Whether the penalties and remedies imposed infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the interpretation of 'prior fixing' in section 93-3 of the 1982 Act, as applied to repeated live broadcasts, was consistent with the essence of the offence and reasonably foreseeable, thus not violating Article 7. The presumption of liability for publishing directors was found to be within reasonable limits and rebuttable, not infringing Article 6. The penalties and remedies imposed were considered proportionate and justified for the protection of reputation, not violating Article 10.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no violation found.

Orders

  • No violation of Article 7 of the Convention.
  • No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention.