[неофициальный перевод]
ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СУД ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
СУДЕБНОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ
ЙЕРСИЛД (JERSILD) ПРОТИВ ДАНИИ
(Страсбург, 23 сентября 1994 года)
(Извлечение)
КРАТКОЕ НЕОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ ДЕЛА
А. Основные факты
Во время событий, послуживших поводом для возникновения
настоящего дела, г-н Йенс Олаф Йерсилд, гражданин Дании, журналист
на службе Датской радиовещательной корпорации, был откомандирован
в распоряжение ее воскресной программы новостей "Санди ньюс
мэгэзин".
31 мая 1985 г. газета "Информейшен" опубликовала статью, где
описывались расистские настроения группы молодых людей, называвших
себя "зеленые куртки", из Остербро в Копенгагене. В свете этой
статьи редакторы "Санди ньюс мэгэзин" решили сделать
документальный фильм о "зеленых куртках". В последующем заявитель
вступил в контакт с представителями этой группы, пригласив троих
из них участвовать в телевизионном интервью. Во время интервью,
которое проводил заявитель, трое членов указанной группы отпускали
оскорбительные и пренебрежительные замечания в адрес эмигрантов и
иных этнических групп в Дании. Все это продолжалось примерно пять
- шесть часов, из которых два или два с половиной часа были
записаны на видеопленку. В последующем заявитель отредактировал и
сократил сделанный из интервью фильм до нескольких минут. 21 июля
1985 г. он был передан в эфир Датской радиовещательной
корпорацией.
В последующем были возбуждены уголовные дела: против трех
молодых людей за их расистские заявления на основании статьи 266
"b" Уголовного кодекса, а против заявителя и руководителя отдела
новостей Датской радиовещательной корпорации за оказание
пособничества и подстрекательство к их распространению на
основании статьи 266 "b" в сочетании со статьей 23. 24 апреля 1987
г. указанные лица были осуждены городским судом Копенгагена. Г-н
Йерсилд был оштрафован на 1000 датских крон. Он и руководитель
отдела новостей подали апелляцию на Решение городского суда,
которое, однако, было поддержано Высоким Судом Восточной Дании и
Верховным судом.
B. Разбирательство в Комиссии по правам человека
Жалоба, поданная 25 июля 1989 г., в которой заявители
утверждали, что стали жертвами нарушения статьи 10 Конвенции, была
объявлена Комиссией приемлемой 8 сентября 1992 г.
В докладе от 8 июля 1993 г. Комиссия, установив обстоятельства
дела, выразила мнение, что имело место нарушение статьи 10
(двенадцатью голосами против четырех).
Дело было передано в Суд Комиссией 9 сентября 1993 г., а
Правительством Дании - 11 октября 1993 г.
ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ИЗ СУДЕБНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
I. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 10
25. Заявитель настаивал, что его осуждение и приговор за
пособничество и подстрекательство к распространению расистских
замечаний нарушили его право на свободу слова в смысле статьи 10
Конвенции, которая гласит:
"1. Каждый человек имеет право на свободу выражать свое мнение.
Это право включает свободу придерживаться своего мнения и свободу
получать и распространять информацию и идеи без какого-либо
вмешательства со стороны государственных органов и независимо от
государственных границ. Настоящая статья не препятствует
государствам осуществлять лицензирование радиовещательных,
телевизионных или кинематографических предприятий.
2. Осуществление этих свобод, налагающее обязанности и
ответственность, может быть сопряжено с формальностями, условиями,
ограничениями или санкциями, которые установлены законом и которые
необходимы в демократическом обществе в интересах государственной
безопасности, территориальной целостности или общественного
спокойствия, в целях предотвращения беспорядков и преступлений,
для охраны здоровья и нравственности, защиты репутации или прав
других лиц, предотвращения разглашения информации, полученной
конфиденциально, или обеспечения авторитета и беспристрастности
правосудия".
26. Правительство оспаривало это утверждение, тогда как
Комиссия поддерживала его.
27. Общим в мнениях сторон является то, что меры, приведшие к
возникновению дела заявителя, представляют собой вмешательство в
осуществление им права на свободу слова.
Более того, данное вмешательство, несомненно, "предусмотрено
законом", т.к. осуждение заявителя основывалось на статьях 226 "b"
и 23 (1) Уголовного кодекса. В этом контексте Правительство
указало, что первая из них была включена в законодательство во
исполнение требований Конвенции ООН. Довод Правительства, как его
понимает Суд, состоит в том, что хотя статья 10 Конвенции и
подлежит применению, Суд, применяя п. 2 означенной статьи, должен
учитывать, что соответствующие статьи Уголовного кодекса следует
толковать и применять в широком смысле в соответствии с логикой
Международной конвенции о ликвидации всех форм расовой
дискриминации, принятой ООН в 1965 г. (см. п. 21 выше). Другими
словами, статья 10 не должна толковаться таким образом, который бы
ограничивал, допускал изъятия или сводил на нет право на защиту от
расовой дискриминации на основании Конвенции ООН.
Наконец, бесспорно и то, что вмешательство преследовало
правомерную цель, а именно "защиту репутации или прав других лиц".
Единственный спорный вопрос заключается в том, были ли такие
меры "необходимы в демократическом обществе".
28. Заявитель и Комиссия придерживались той точки зрения, что,
несмотря на обязательства Дании как участника Конвенции ООН (см.
п. 21 выше), необходимо найти справедливое равновесие между
"защитой репутации или прав других лиц" и правом заявителя
распространять информацию. Согласно заявителю, такой баланс
намечен в одном из пунктов статьи 4 Конвенции ООН, где
указывалось, что должное внимание должно быть уделено и принципам,
содержащимся во Всеобщей декларации прав человека, и правам, ясно
изложенным в статье 5 настоящей Конвенции [ООН]. Этот пункт был
внесен при подготовке проекта документа в связи с опасением ряда
государств - членов, что требование статьи 4 "a": "[государства -
участники] должны объявить уголовно наказуемым деянием всякое
распространение идей, основывающихся на расовой ненависти или
превосходстве", - носит слишком всеохватывающий характер и могло
бы вызвать трудности в отношении других прав человека, в частности
права на свободу слова и убеждений. Заявитель именно этим
объяснял, почему Комитет министров Совета Европы, обратившись к
государствам - членам с призывом ратифицировать Конвенцию ООН,
предложил, чтобы в акт ратификации было добавлено заявление о
толковании, где подчеркивалась бы inter alia необходимость
должного уважения к правам, содержащимся в Европейской конвенции
(Резолюция (68) 30, 31 октября 1968 г.).
Заявитель и Комиссия подчеркнули, что оскорбительные замечания,
взятые в контексте телепередачи, в целом скорее демонстрировали
глупость их авторов, представляли их в смешном свете, чем служили
пропаганде их расистских взглядов. Общее впечатление от программы
состояло в том, что она привлекала внимание общественности к
вопросу, имеющему большое общественное значение, а именно расизму
и ксенофобии. Заявитель умышленно включил оскорбительные заявления
в свой телесюжет не с намерением содействовать распространению
расистских представлений, а чтобы противодействовать им,
разоблачить их. Заявитель настаивал на том, что он пытался
показать, проанализировать и объяснить своим зрителям новый для
Дании того времени феномен - появление у полуграмотной и социально
уязвимой молодежи воинствующего расизма. Вместе с Комиссией он
считал, что телепередача не могла оказать существенного
отрицательного воздействия на "репутацию или права других лиц".
Интересы защиты свободы слова заявителя, таким образом, брали верх
над интересами защиты последних.
Кроме того, заявитель утверждал, что если бы Закон об
ответственности средств информации 1991 г. уже вступил в силу на
рассматриваемый период времени, то ему бы не грозило судебное
преследование, т.к. согласно этому акту ответственность за
наказуемое заявление в принципе должен нести только его автор. Это
подрывает довод Правительства о том, что его осуждение требовалось
по Конвенции ООН и являлось "необходимым в демократическом
обществе" в смысле статьи 10.
29. Правительство, возражая, утверждало, что заявитель
отредактировал телесюжет, посвященный "зеленым курткам", в
сенсационном, а не информативном ключе и что информационная или
новостная ценность была минимальной. Телевидение является мощным
средством воздействия, и большинство датчан обычно смотрят
передачи новостей, в которых был показан этот сюжет. Заявитель,
зная, что это может повлечь уголовную ответственность, тем не
менее подстрекал "зеленые куртки" к расистским заявлениям перед
телекамерой и ничего не противопоставил им в своей программе.
Слишком хитроумно было бы предполагать, что зрители не примут эти
замечания за чистую монету. Нельзя придавать значение тому
обстоятельству, что на передачу поступило лишь небольшое
количество жалоб, т.к. из-за отсутствия информации и
недостаточного знания датского языка и даже из страха
насильственных репрессалий со стороны расистов жертвы
оскорбительных комментариев, вероятно, боялись жаловаться.
Заявитель, таким образом, не справился с "обязанностями и
ответственностью", лежащими на нем как на тележурналисте.
Наложенный на него штраф находится на нижней границе шкалы
санкций, применяемых за правонарушения, предусмотренные статьей
206 п. "b", и потому маловероятно, чтобы это могло устрашить
какого-либо журналиста, пожелавшего внести лепту в общественную
дискуссию о расизме и ксенофобии; он лишь служит публичным
напоминанием о том, что к расистским высказываниям следует
относиться всерьез и нетерпимо.
Более того, Правительство оспаривало утверждение, что вопрос
рассматривался бы иначе, если бы в рассматриваемый период Закон об
ответственности средств информации 1991 г. уже действовал. Норма,
согласно которой ответственность за наказуемое заявление может
быть возложена только на его автора, знает несколько исключений
(см. п. 20 выше); вопрос о том, как стало бы рассматриваться дело
заявителя в соответствии с Законом 1991 г., является чисто
умозрительным.
Правительство подчеркнуло, что на всех трех уровнях
рассмотрения суды Дании, которые в принципе находятся в лучшем
положении, чем Европейский суд, чтобы судить о воздействии
программы на население страны, провели тщательное сопоставление
всех вовлеченных в дело интересов. Проведенное судами рассмотрение
аналогично тому, которое производится на основании статьи 10; их
решения лежат в предоставленной национальным властям сфере
усмотрения и соответствуют неотложной социальной потребности.
30. Суд хотел бы с самого начала подчеркнуть, что он полностью
сознает насущную необходимость борьбы с расовой дискриминацией во
всех ее формах и проявлениях. Возможно, правильно, как предположил
заявитель, что в результате последних событий понимание опасности
расовой дискриминации сегодня острее, чем в рассматриваемый
период, т.е. десять лет назад. Тем не менее вопрос уже тогда
приобрел всеобщую значимость, что иллюстрируется принятием в 1965
г. Конвенции ООН. Следовательно, цель и назначение Конвенции ООН
имеют большую важность при определении того, было ли осуждение
заявителя, - которое, как подчеркивает Правительство, основывалось
на положении Закона, принятого, чтобы обеспечить выполнение Данией
своих обязательств по Конвенции ООН, - "необходимым" в смысле
статьи 10 п. 2.
Обязательства Дании в соответствии со статьей 10 должны в меру
возможного толковаться так, чтобы они были совместимы с ее
обязательствами в соответствии с Конвенцией ООН. В задачу Суда не
входит толкование статьи 4 Конвенции ООН. Однако Суд
придерживается мнения, что применение в настоящем деле статьи 10
Европейской конвенции совместимо с обязательствами Дании по
Конвенции ООН.
31. Отличительной чертой настоящего дела является то, что сам
заявитель не делал предосудительных заявлений, а лишь содействовал
их распространению в качестве телевизионного журналиста,
ответственного за программу новостей Датской радиовещательной
корпорации (см. п. 9 - 11 выше). При оценке того, были ли его
осуждение и вынесение приговора "необходимыми", Суд, таким
образом, должен будет принять во внимание принципы, установленные
в его судебной практике применительно к роли прессы (как они были
суммированы, например, в Решении по делу "Обсервер" и "Гардиан" от
26 ноября 1991 г. Серия A, т. 216, с. 29 - 30, п. 59).
Суд вновь подчеркнул, что свобода слова является одной из
главных опор демократического общества и что предоставляемые
прессе гарантии имеют особое значение (там же). Пресса, выполняя
возложенную на нее функцию распространения информации и идей в
общественных интересах, не должна преступать пределов,
установленных inter alia в интересах "защиты прав и репутации
других лиц". В то время как на прессу возлагается задача
распространять такие информацию и идеи, общественности
предоставляется право получать их. Если бы это было иначе, то
пресса была бы не в состоянии играть свою жизненно необходимую
роль "сторожевого пса общественности" (там же). Эти принципы, хотя
они и были сформулированы прежде всего в отношении печатных
средств информации, без сомнения, применимы и к аудиовизуальным
средствам информации.
При рассмотрении "обязанностей и ответственности" журналиста
потенциальное воздействие соответствующего средства информации
является важным фактором; повсюду признается, что аудиовизуальные
средства информации часто обладают значительно более
непосредственным и мощным воздействием, чем печать (см. Перселлс и
другие против Ирландии, Решение Комиссии о приемлемости от 16
апреля 1991 г., жалоба N 15404/89, D.R. т. 70, с. 262).
Аудиовизуальные средства информации способны с помощью образов
передавать смысл, который не в силах донести печатные средства
информации.
В то же время методы объективного и сбалансированного репортажа
могут существенно варьироваться в зависимости от других
особенностей средства информации. Ни данному Суду, ни национальным
судам не подобает подменять в этом вопросе своими собственными
взглядами суждения прессы относительно того, к какой технике
репортажа следует прибегать журналистам. В этом контексте Суд
напоминает, что статья 10 защищает не только содержание выражаемых
идей и информации, но и форму их передачи (см. Решение по делу
Обершлика от 23 мая 1991 г. Серия A, т. 204, с. 24, п. 57).
Суд будет рассматривать обжалуемое вмешательство в свете дела в
целом и определит, являются ли основания, выдвигаемые
национальными властями в его оправдание, соответствующими и
достаточными, и были ли использованные средства соразмерны с
преследуемой правомерной целью (см. вышеупомянутое Решение по делу
"Обсервер" и "Гардиан", с. 29 - 30, п. 59). Поступая так, Суд
должен убедиться также в том, что национальные власти применяли
нормы, соответствующие принципам статьи 10 и, более того, что их
применение основывалось на приемлемой оценке обстоятельств,
относящихся к делу (см., например, Решение по делу Швабе от 28
августа 1992 г. Серия A, т. 242-B, с. 32 - 33, п. 29).
Оценка Суда должна учитывать манеру, в которой был подготовлен
телесюжет о "зеленых куртках", его содержание, контекст, в котором
он вышел в эфир, и цели программы. Учитывая обязательства, взятые
на себя государствами на основании Конвенции ООН и других
международных договоров, принимать эффективные меры для ликвидации
всех форм расовой дискриминации, предотвращения распространения и
борьбы с расистскими учениями и практикой (см. п. 21 выше), важным
аспектом анализа Суда будет оценка, насколько сюжет, о котором
идет речь, если его рассматривать как целое, объективно выглядел
как способствовавший пропаганде расистских взглядов и идей.
32. Национальные суды особенно подчеркивали то обстоятельство,
что заявитель сам взял на себя инициативу по подготовке телесюжета
о "зеленых куртках" и что он не только заранее знал, что во время
интервью будут, вероятно, сделаны расистские заявления, но и
поощрял такие заявления. Он отредактировал программу таким
образом, чтобы включить в нее оскорбительные утверждения. Без его
активного участия эти замечания не были бы распространены среди
широкого круга лиц и не были бы, таким образом, наказуемы (см. п.
14, 18 выше).
Суд убедился, что это были надлежащие основания в целях статьи
10 п. 2.
33. С другой стороны, говоря о содержании сюжета о "зеленых
куртках", следует отметить, что телевизионный ведущий начал
представление программы со ссылки на недавнюю дискуссию в обществе
и выступления в прессе по поводу расизма в Дании, приглашая тем
самым зрителя смотреть передачу под этим углом зрения. Далее он
объявил, что цель данной передачи состоит в том, чтобы затронуть
определенные аспекты проблемы, опознать в некоторых людях
расистов, дав описание их ментальности и социального
происхождения. Нет оснований сомневаться в том, что последовавшие
интервью выполнили эту задачу. Взятый в целом, данный телесюжет
объективно был не похож на материал, цель которого состояла в
пропаганде расистских идей и взглядов. Напротив, в нем очевидно
стремление при помощи интервью выставить на всеобщее обозрение,
проанализировать и объяснить поведение именно этой группы молодых
людей, ограниченных и недовольных своим социальным положением,
склонных к насилию и уже имеющих судимость. Таким образом, были
затронуты специфические аспекты проблемы, которая уже тогда
вызывала большую озабоченность общественности.
Верховный суд отметил, что новостная или информационная
ценность телесюжета была недостаточна, чтобы оправдать
распространение оскорбительных замечаний (см. п. 18 выше). Однако
в свете принципов, изложенных в п. 31 выше, Суд не видит причин
для того, чтобы ставить под вопрос оценку намерений сотрудников
редакции "Санди ньюс мэгэзин" или информационной ценности
оспариваемого телесюжета, которые легли в основу их решения
подготовить сюжет и выпустить его в эфир.
34. Более того, следует иметь в виду, что данный сюжет был
передан в эфир как часть серьезной датской программы новостей, и
он был рассчитан на хорошо информированную аудиторию (см. п. 9
выше).
Суд не убедил довод, также подчеркнутый национальными судами
(см. п. 14 и 18 выше), что телесюжет о "зеленых куртках" был
представлен без попыток что-либо противопоставить выраженным в нем
экстремистским взглядам. Как представление сюжета телевизионным
ведущим, так и поведение самого заявителя во время интервью
показывают, что он отчетливо отмежевался от опрашиваемых,
например, характеризуя их как "группу экстремистски настроенной
молодежи", сторонников Ку-клукс-клана и ссылаясь на уголовное
прошлое некоторых из них. Заявитель также парировал некоторые
расистские заявления, напомнив, например, что есть чернокожие
люди, которые выполняют важную работу. И, наконец, не следует
забывать, что взятая в целом кинозарисовка показывала, что
расистские заявления были только частью общей антисоциальной
установки "зеленых курток".
По общему признанию, телесюжет не напоминал специально об
аморальности, опасности и противозаконности распространения
расовой ненависти или идей превосходства одной расы. Однако,
учитывая вышеупомянутые элементы противопоставления и ограниченные
возможности краткого сюжета в рамках общей программы, а также
журналистскую самостоятельность в выборе использования форм
выражения, Суд не считает отсутствие таких напоминаний в
профилактических целях существенным.
35. Репортажи, строящиеся на интервью, отредактированных или не
редактированных, представляют собой одно из важнейших средств, при
помощи которых пресса может играть свою исключительно важную роль
"сторожевого пса общественности" (см., например, вышеупомянутое
Судебное решение по делу "Обсервер" и "Гардиан", с. 29 - 30, п.
59). Наказание журналистов за содействие в распространении
заявлений, сделанных другим лицом по ходу интервью, могло бы
серьезно помешать прессе вносить свой вклад в обсуждение проблем,
представляющих общественный интерес, если только речь не идет об
особо серьезных ситуациях. В этом отношении Суд не приемлет довода
Правительства о незначительном размере штрафа; единственное, что
имеет значение, так это факт осуждения журналиста.
Нет сомнений, что высказывания, за которые были осуждены
"зеленые куртки" (см. п. 14 выше), были более чем оскорбительны
для лиц, принадлежавших к тем группам, против которых они были
нацелены, и что такие замечания не пользуются защитой статьи 10
(см., например, Решения Комиссии о приемлемости по делам
Глиммервеена и Хагенбеека, жалобы N 8348/78 и N 8406/78. D.R. 18,
с. 187; и дело Кюнена, жалоба N 12194/86. D.R. 56, с. 205).
Однако, даже учитывая манеру, в которой заявитель подготовил
телевизионный сюжет о "зеленых куртках" (см. п. 32 выше), не было
доказано, что данный телесюжет, взятый в целом, оправдывал
осуждение и наказание журналиста за преступление, предусмотренное
Уголовным кодексом.
36. Более того, никем не оспаривается, что при подготовке
телепередачи заявитель не преследовал расистских целей. Хотя он и
ссылался на это при разбирательстве дела внутренними судами, из
мотивировочной части соответствующих судебных решений не видно,
чтобы они приняли во внимание это обстоятельство (см. п. 14, 17 и
18 выше).
37. С учетом вышеизложенного, основания, выдвинутые в поддержку
осуждения заявителя и вынесения обвинительного приговора,
недостаточны для того, чтобы со всей убедительностью установить,
что имевшее место вмешательство в осуществление его права на
свободу слова было "необходимым в демократическом обществе", а
использованные при этом средства были соразмерны с преследуемой
правомерной целью защиты "репутации или прав других лиц".
Соответственно это вмешательство привело к нарушению статьи 10
Конвенции.
II. Применение статьи 50
38. Г-н Йерсилд потребовал справедливого возмещения на
основании статьи 50, которая гласит:
"Если Суд установит, что решение или мера, принятые судебными
или иными властями Высокой Договаривающейся Стороны, полностью или
частично противоречат обязательствам, вытекающим из настоящей
Конвенции, а также если внутреннее право упомянутой Стороны
допускает лишь частичное возмещение последствий такого решения или
такой меры, то решением Суда, если в этом есть необходимость,
предусматривается справедливое возмещение потерпевшей стороне".
39. Правительство часть его требований приняло. Комиссия
отказалась от каких-либо комментариев.
A. Возмещение вреда
40. Заявитель потребовал, чтобы 1000 крон - сумма наложенного
на него штрафа - были возмещены Датской радиовещательной
корпорации, которая временно уплатила за него штраф.
41. Правительство не возражает, и Суд считает, что указанная
сумма должна быть присуждена.
B. Моральный вред
42. Заявитель потребовал 20000 крон - в качестве компенсации за
моральный вред. Он настаивал, что вред был причинен его
профессиональной репутации, а сам он тяжело пережил свое
осуждение.
43. Суд отмечает, что заявитель по-прежнему работает в "Санди
ньюс мэгэзин" в Датской радиовещательной корпорации и что его
работодатель оказывал ему поддержку на протяжении судебного
разбирательства, inter alia заплатив за него штраф (см. п. 9, 40
выше) и оплатив судебные издержки (см. п. 44 ниже). Он согласен с
Правительством, что в этом отношении само установление факта
нарушения статьи 10 представляет собой адекватное справедливое
возмещение морального вреда.
C. Издержки и расходы
44. В отношении издержек и расходов заявитель потребовал:
a) 45000 крон за работу, проделанную его адвокатом г-ном Дж.
Стокгольмом в ходе разбирательства во внутренних судах;
b) за судебные издержки, понесенные в ходе разбирательства в
Страсбурге, 13126,80 крон для г-жи Иоганнесен, 6900 фунтов
стерлингов для г-на Бойле и 50000 крон (исключая 25%-ный налог на
добавленную стоимость) для г-на Триера;
c) 20169,20 кроны на покрытие расходов по письменному и устному
переводу, а также за экспертные заключения;
d) 25080 крон, 965,40 фунта и 4075 французских франков за
транспортные расходы и расходы по проживанию, понесенные в связи
со слушаниями в Европейской комиссии и Суде, а также прочие
расходы.
Часть вышеупомянутых издержек и расходов была временно оплачена
Датской радиовещательной корпорацией.
45. Правительство не возражало против вышеуказанных требований.
Суд считает, что заявитель имеет право на полное возмещение
означенных сумм. Они должны быть увеличены в зависимости от налога
на добавленную стоимость, который может быть на них начислен.
ПО ЭТИМ ОСНОВАНИЯМ СУД
1. Постановил двенадцатью голосами против семи, что имело место
нарушение статьи 10 Конвенции;
2. Постановил семнадцатью голосами против двух, что в течение
трех месяцев Дания должна выплатить заявителю 1000 (тысячу)
датских крон в качестве компенсации за имущественный ущерб; а за
издержки и расходы - сумму, которая должна быть определена в
соответствии с условиями, изложенными в п. 45 настоящего Судебного
решения;
3. Отверг единогласно оставшуюся часть требования о
справедливом возмещении.
Совершено на английском и французском языках и оглашено на
публичном заседании во Дворце прав человека в Страсбурге 23
сентября 1994 г.
Председатель
Рольф РИССДАЛ
Исполняющий обязанности Грефье
Герберт ПЕТЦОЛЬД
В соответствии со статьями 51 п. 2 Конвенции и 53 п. 2
Регламента Суда к настоящему Решению прилагаются отдельные мнения
судей.
СОВМЕСТНОЕ ОСОБОЕ МНЕНИЕ СУДЕЙ РИССДАЛА,
БЕРНХАРДТА, ШПИЛЬМАНА И ЛОИЗУ
1. Наш Суд впервые столкнулся с делом, касающимся
распространения расистских высказываний, которые отрицают
принадлежность к "человеческим существам" большой группы людей. В
своих более ранних решениях Суд, на наш взгляд, справедливо
подчеркивал большое значение для демократического общества свободы
печати и средств информации в целом, но ему ни разу не приходилось
рассматривать ситуацию, где "репутация или права других лиц"
(статья 10 п. 2) оказывались до такой степени в опасности.
2. Мы согласны с большинством (п. 35 Судебного решения), что
высказывания самих "зеленых курток" "не пользуются защитой статьи
10". То же самое должно относиться к журналистам, которые
распространяют подобные высказывания с благожелательным
комментарием или с одобрением. Этого однозначно нельзя сказать о
заявителе. Поэтому, по общему мнению, трудно найти правильный
баланс между свободой прессы и защитой других лиц. Но большинство
Суда придало гораздо большее значение свободе журналиста, чем
защите тех, кто вынужден страдать от расовой ненависти.
3. И из письменного текста интервью (п. 11 Судебного решения),
и из видеофильма, который мы смотрели, очевидно, что замечания
"зеленых курток" не могут быть терпимы в обществе, основанном на
соблюдении прав человека. Заявитель сократил полный текст интервью
до нескольких минут, вследствие чего и даже, наверное, умышленно в
нем были оставлены самые грубые замечания. Раз это так, то было
совершенно необходимо дополнить его по крайней мере четко
выраженной неодобрительной фразой. Большинство Суда усматривает
такое неодобрение в контексте всего интервью. Но это лишь
толкование загадочного молчания. Никто не может исключить, что
некоторая часть аудитории нашла в данном телевизионном сюжете
подтверждение своим расистским предрассудкам.
А каковы должны быть чувства тех, чье человеческое достоинство
стало мишенью и даже вовсе отрицалось "зелеными куртками"? Могло
ли у них сложиться впечатление, что, если смотреть в контексте,
данная телевизионная передача содействует их защите? В подобной
ситуации добрых намерений журналиста недостаточно, особенно там,
где он сам спровоцировал расистские заявления.
4. Международная конвенция о ликвидации всех форм расовой
дискриминации, возможно, не требует наказания журналистов,
ответственных за подготовку телесюжетов такого рода. С другой
стороны, она поддерживает точку зрения, что средства информации
тоже обязаны занять четкую позицию в вопросе о расовой
дискриминации и ненависти.
5. Угроза расовой дискриминации и преследований в нашем
обществе, конечно, является серьезной проблемой, и Суд справедливо
подчеркнул огромную важность борьбы с расовой дискриминацией во
всех ее формах и проявлениях (п. 30 Судебного решения). Датские
суды полностью сознают, что защита лиц, чье человеческое
достоинство попирается, должна быть соотнесена с правом на свободу
слова. Они тщательно проанализировали ответственность заявителя, и
основания для их вывода были совершенно уместны. Защита расовых
меньшинств не может быть менее значимой, чем право на
распространение информации, а в конкретных обстоятельствах
настоящего дела данному Суду не следовало, по нашему мнению,
подменять собственным балансом конфликтующих интересов тот, что
был найден Верховным судом Дании. Мы убеждены, что датские суды
действовали в пределах сферы усмотрения, которая должна быть
оставлена государствам - участникам в этой чувствительной области.
Соответственно, решения датских судов нельзя рассматривать как
ведущие к нарушению статьи 10 Конвенции.
СОВМЕСТНОЕ ОСОБОЕ МНЕНИЕ СУДЕЙ ГЕЛЬКЮКЛЮ,
РУССО И ВАЛЬТИКОСА
Мы не можем разделить мнение большинства Суда по делу Йерсилда.
Действительно, в этом деле спор идет по поводу двух важнейших
принципов, один из них - это свобода слова, нашедшая воплощение в
статье 10 Конвенции, другой - запрет брать под защиту расовую
ненависть, что, безусловно, является одним из ограничений,
разрешенных статьей 10 п. 2, а кроме того, служит объектом
основополагающих документов по правам человека, принятых
Генеральной Ассамблеей ООН, в особенности Конвенции о ликвидации
всех форм расовой дискриминации 1965 г. Очевидно, что данная
Конвенция не может игнорироваться при применении Европейской
конвенции. Более того, она является для Дании обязательной. Ею
должен также руководствоваться в своих решениях Европейский суд по
правам человека, в частности, в отношении содержания, которое она
придает терминам, используемым в Европейской конвенции и
установленным Конвенцией в общей форме исключениям.
В данном деле сделанные расистские заявления были охотно
воспроизведены в передаче Датского телевидения без какой-либо
существенной реакции со стороны комментатора, что фактически
равносильно подстрекательству к неуважению иностранцев вообще, но
особенно чернокожих людей, описываемых как принадлежащих к низшей,
недочеловеческой расе ("ниггеры... не люди... Возьмите фотографию
гориллы, а затем взгляните на ниггера, у них одинаковое строение
тела... Ниггер не человек, это животное, что верно также и в
отношении всех иностранных рабочих, турков, югославов и прочих,
как бы они ни назывались").
Несмотря на то, что мы ценим особое значение, которое придают
свободе слова некоторые судьи, тем более что совсем недавно их
страны были ее лишены, мы не можем принять того, чтобы эта свобода
распространялась и на подстрекательство к расовой ненависти, и на
презрение к народам иным, чем тот, к которому мы принадлежим, и на
апологию применения насилия по отношению к указанным народам.
Прозвучало требование защитить телепередачу на том основании, что
она вызовет здоровую реакцию отторжения у зрителей. Но это было бы
проявлением оптимизма, который, мягко говоря, опровергается
опытом. Сегодня большие группы молодых людей, и даже всего
населения, выбитые из колеи трудностями жизни, безработицей и
бедностью, жаждут только одного - найти "козлов отпущения",
которых им и предлагают без каких-либо реальных слов
предостережения. В данном случае - и это весьма важный момент -
журналист, ответственный за подготовку передачи, о которой идет
речь, не сделал никакой реальной попытки оспорить взгляды,
представленные в передаче, что было необходимо, если ее
воздействие планировалось сбалансировать по крайней мере для
зрителей.
Раз это так, мы полагаем, что, приняв меры уголовного
характера, более того, весьма умеренные, судебные учреждения Дании
никоим образом не нарушили статью 10 Конвенции.
ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНОЕ СОВМЕСТНОЕ ОСОБОЕ МНЕНИЕ
СУДЕЙ ГЕЛЬКЮКЛЮ И ВАЛЬТИКОСА
Мы проголосовали против п. 2 постановляющей части Судебного
решения, потому что мы твердо убеждены, что заявитель был не прав,
никак не отреагировав на апологию расизма, поэтому мы считаем
неоправданным присуждение ему какой бы то ни было компенсации.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF JERSILD v. DENMARK
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 23.IX.1994)
In the case of Jersild v. Denmark <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Note by the Registrar. The case is numbered
36/1993/431/510. The first number is the case's position on the
list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second
number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the
list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the
list of the corresponding originating applications to the
Commission.
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber
pursuant to Rule 51 of the Rules of Court and composed of the
following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr R. Bernhardt,
Mr {F. Golcuklu} <*>,
Mr R. Macdonald,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr S.K. Martens,
Mrs E. Palm,
Mr R. Pekkanen,
Mr A.N. Loizou,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha,
Mr L. Wildhaber,
Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr B. Repik,
Mr A. Philip, ad hoc judge,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Acting Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 April and 22 August 1994,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court on 9 September 1993 by
the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") and on
11 October 1993 by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark ("the
Government"), within the three-month period laid down by Article
32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the
Convention"). It originated in an application (no. 15890/89)
against Denmark lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art.
25) by a Danish national, Mr Jens Olaf Jersild, on 25 July 1989.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art.
44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Denmark recognised the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the
Government's application referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,
art. 48). The object of the request and of the Government's
application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of
the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its
obligations under Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he
wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers
who would represent him (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr I.
Foighel, the elected judge of Danish nationality (Article 43 of
the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the
Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). However, on 20 September 1993 Mr
Foighel withdrew from the case pursuant to Rule 24 para. 2. On 24
September 1993, in the presence of the Registrar, the President
drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr R.
Macdonald, Mrs E. Palm, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr G.
Mifsud Bonnici, Mr J. Makarczyk and Mr D. Gotchev (Article 43 in
fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). By letter
of 29 October the Agent of the Government notified the Registrar
of the appointment of Mr K. Waaben as an ad hoc judge; in a letter
of 16 November the Agent informed the Registrar that Mr Waaben had
withdrawn and that they had therefore appointed Mr A. Philip to
replace him (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 23) (art. 43).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal,
acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the
Government, the applicant's lawyers and the Delegate of the
Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para.
1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the
Registrar received the Government's memorial on 18 February 1994
and the applicant's memorial on 20 February. In a letter of 7
March the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that
the Delegate did not wish to reply in writing.
5. On 23 February 1994 the President, having consulted the
Chamber, had granted leave to Human Rights Watch, a New York based
non-governmental human rights organisation, to submit observations
on specific aspects of the case (Rule 37 para. 2). The latter's
comments were filed on 23 March.
On 23 February the Chamber had authorised (Rule 41 para. 1) the
applicant to show the video-recording of the television programme
in issue in his case to the judges taking part in the proceedings.
A showing was held shortly before the hearing on 20 April.
6. On 23 February the Chamber had also decided to relinquish
jurisdiction forthwith in favour of a Grand Chamber (Rule 51). The
President and the Vice-President, Mr R. Bernhardt, as well as the
other members of the Chamber being ex officio members of the Grand
Chamber, the names of the additional nine judges were drawn by lot
by the President in the presence of the Registrar on 24 February
(Rule 51 para. 2 (a) to (c)), namely Mr {F. Golcuklu}, Mr C.
Russo, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr N. Valticos, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr A.N.
Loizou, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr L. Wildhaber and Mr B. Repik.
7. On various dates between 22 March and 15 April 1994 the
Commission produced a number of documents and two video-cassettes,
as requested by the Registrar on the President's instructions, and
the applicant submitted further details on his claims under
Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention.
8. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing
took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
20 April 1994. The Court had held a preparatory meeting
beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr T. Lehmann, Ambassador, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Agent,
Mr M.B. Elmer, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Chief Legal Adviser,
Ministry of Justice,
Ms J. Rechnagel, Minister Counsellor, Ministry of Justice,
Mr J. Lundum, Head of Section, Ministry of Justice, Advisers;
(b) for the Commission
Mr C.L. Rozakis, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant
Mr K. Boyle, Barrister, Professor of Law at the University of
Essex,
Mr T. Trier, advokat, Lecturer of Law at the University of
Copenhagen, Counsel,
Mrs L. Johannessen, lawyer, Adviser.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Rozakis, Mr Lehmann, Mr Elmer,
Mr Boyle and Mr Trier, and also replies to a question put by the
President.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. The particular circumstances of the case
9. Mr Jens Olaf Jersild, a Danish national, is a journalist and
lives in Copenhagen. He was at the time of the events giving rise
to the present case, and still is, employed by Danmarks Radio
(Danish Broadcasting Corporation, which broadcasts not only radio
but also television programmes), assigned to its Sunday News
Magazine ({Sondagsavisen}). The latter is known as a serious
television programme intended for a well-informed audience,
dealing with a wide range of social and political issues,
including xenophobia, immigration and refugees.
A. The Greenjackets item
10. On 31 May 1985 the newspaper Information published an
article describing the racist attitudes of members of a group of
young people, calling themselves "the Greenjackets"
("{gronjakkerne}"), at {Osterbro} in Copenhagen. In the light of
this article, the editors of the Sunday News Magazine decided to
produce a documentary on the Greenjackets. Subsequently the
applicant contacted representatives of the group, inviting three
of them together with Mr Per Axholt, a social worker employed at
the local youth centre, to take part in a television interview.
During the interview, which was conducted by the applicant, the
three Greenjackets made abusive and derogatory remarks about
immigrants and ethnic groups in Denmark. It lasted between five
and six hours, of which between two and two and a half hours were
video-recorded. Danmarks Radio paid the interviewees fees in
accordance with its usual practice.
11. The applicant subsequently edited and cut the film of the
interview down to a few minutes. On 21 July 1985 this was
broadcast by Danmarks Radio as a part of the Sunday News Magazine.
The programme consisted of a variety of items, for instance on the
martial law in South Africa, on the debate on profit-sharing in
Denmark and on the late German writer Heinrich {Boll}. The
transcript of the Greenjackets item reads as follows [(I): TV
presenter; (A): the applicant; (G): one or other of the
Greenjackets]:
(I) "In recent years, a great deal has been said about racism
in Denmark. The papers are currently publishing stories about
distrust and resentment directed against minorities. Who are the
people who hate the minorities? Where do they come from? What is
their mentality like? Mr Jens Olaf Jersild has visited a group of
extremist youths at {Osterbro} in Copenhagen.
(A) The flag on the wall is the flag of the Southern States
from the American Civil War, but today it is also the symbol of
racism, the symbol of the American movement, the Ku Klux Klan, and
it shows what Lille Steen, Henrik and Nisse are.
Are you a racist?
(G) Yes, that's what I regard myself as.
It's good being a racist.
We believe Denmark is for the Danes.
(A) Henrik, Lille Steen and all the others are members of a
group of young people who live in {Studsgardsgade}, called
STUDSEN, in {Osterbro} in Copenhagen. It is public housing, a lot
of the inhabitants are unemployed and on social security; the
crime rate is high. Some of the young people in this neighbourhood
have already been involved in criminal activities and have already
been convicted.
(G) It was an ordinary armed robbery at a petrol station.
(A) What did you do?
(G) Nothing. I just ran into a petrol station with a ... gun
and made them give me some money. Then I ran out again. That's
all.
(A) What about you, what happened?
(G) I don't wish to discuss that further.
(A) But, was it violence?
(G) Yes.
(A) You have just come out of ... you have been arrested, what
were you arrested for?
(G) Street violence.
(A) What happened?
(G) I had a little fight with the police together with some
friends.
(A) Does that happen often?
(G) Yes, out here it does.
(A) All in all, there are 20 - 25 young people from STUDSEN in
the same group.
They meet not far away from the public housing area near some
old houses which are to be torn down. They meet here to reaffirm
among other things their racism, their hatred of immigrants and
their support for the Ku Klux Klan.
(G) The Ku Klux Klan, that's something that comes from the
States in the old days during - you know - the civil war and
things like that, because the Northern States wanted that the
niggers should be free human beings, man, they are not human
beings, they are animals, right, it's completely wrong, man, the
things that happened. People should be allowed to keep slaves, I
think so anyway.
(A) Because blacks are not human beings?
(G) No, you can also see that from their body structure, man,
big flat noses, with cauliflower ears etc., man. Broad heads and
very broad bodies, man, hairy, you are looking at a gorilla and
compare it with an ape, man, then it is the same [behaviour], man,
it's the same movements, long arms, man, long fingers etc., long
feet.
(A) A lot of people are saying something different. There are a
lot of people who say, but ...
(G) Just take a picture of a gorilla, man, and then look at a
nigger, it's the same body structure and everything, man, flat
forehead and all kinds of things.
(A) There are many blacks, for example in the USA, who have
important jobs.
(G) Of course, there is always someone who wants to show off,
as if they are better than the white man, but in the long run,
it's the white man who is better.
(A) What does Ku Klux Klan mean to you?
(G) It means a great deal, because I think what they do is
right. A nigger is not a human being, it's an animal, that goes
for all the other foreign workers as well, Turks, Yugoslavs and
whatever they are called.
(A) Henrik is 19 years old and on welfare. He lives in a rented
room in {Studsgardsgade}. Henrik is one of the strongest
supporters of the Klan, and he hates the foreign workers,
"Perkere" [a very derogatory word in Danish for immigrant
workers].
(G) They come up here, man, and sponge on our society. But we,
we have enough problems in getting our social benefits, man, they
just get it. Fuck, we can argue with those idiots up there at the
social benefit office to get our money, man, they just get it,
man, they are the first on the housing list, they get better flats
than us, man, and some of our friends who have children, man, they
are living in the worst slum, man, they can't even get a shower in
their flat, man, then those "Perkere"-families, man, go up there
with seven kids, man, and they just get an expensive flat, right
there and then. They get everything paid, and things like that,
that can't be right, man, Denmark is for the Danes, right?
It is the fact that they are "Perkere", that's what we don't
like, right, and we don't like their mentality - I mean they can
damn well, I mean ... what's it called ... I mean if they feel
like speaking Russian in their homes, right, then it's okay, but
what we don't like is when they walk around in those Zimbabwe-
clothes and then speak this hula-hula language in the street, and
if you ask them something or if you get into one of their taxis
then they say: I don't know where it is, you give directions
right.
(A) Is it not so that perhaps you are a bit envious that some
of the "Perkere" as you call them have their own shops, and cars,
they can make ends ...
(G) It's drugs they are selling, man, half of the prison
population in "Vestre" are in there because of drugs, man, half of
those in Vestre prison anyway, they are the people who are serving
time for dealing drugs or something similar.
They are in there, all the "Perkere", because of drugs, right.
[That] must be enough, what's it called, there should not be drugs
here in this country, but if it really has to be smuggled in, I
think we should do it ourselves, I mean, I think it's unfair that
those foreigners come up here to ... what's it called ... make
Denmark more drug dependent and things like that.
We have painted their doors and hoped that they would get fed
up with it, so that they would soon leave, and jumped on their
cars and thrown paint in their faces when they were lying in bed
sleeping.
(A) What was it you did with that paint - why paint?
(G) Because it was white paint, I think that suited them well,
that was the intended effect.
(A) You threw paint through the windows of an immigrant family?
(G) Yes.
(A) What happened?
(G) He just got it in his face, that's all. Well, I think he
woke up, and then he came out and shouted something in his hula-
hula language.
(A) Did he report it to the police?
(G) I don't know if he did, I mean, he won't get anywhere by
doing that.
(A) Why not?
(G) I don't know, it's just kid's stuff, like other people
throwing water in people's faces, he got paint in his. They can't
make anything out of that.
---
(A) Per Axholt, known as "Pax" [(P)], is employed in the youth
centre in {Studsgardsgade}. He has worked there for several years,
but many give up a lot sooner because of the tough environment.
Per Axholt feels that the reasons why the young people are
persecuting the immigrants is that they are themselves powerless
and disappointed.
What do you think they would say that they want, if you asked
them?
(P) Just what you and I want. Some control over their lives,
work which may be considered decent and which they like, a
reasonable economic situation, a reasonably functioning family, a
wife or a husband and some children, a reasonable middle-class
life such as you and I have.
(A) They do many things which are sure to prevent them from
getting it.
(P) That is correct.
(A) Why do you think they do this?
(P) Because they have nothing better to do. They have been told
over a long period that the means by which to achieve success is
money. They won't be able to get money legitimately, so often they
try to obtain it through criminal activity. Sometimes they
succeed, sometimes not, and that's why we see a lot of young
people in that situation go to prison, because it doesn't work.
---
(A) How old were you when you started your criminal activities?
(G) I don't know, about 14 I guess.
(A) What did you do?
(G) The first time, I can't remember, I don't know, burglary.
(A) Do you have what one might call a criminal career?
(G) I don't know if you can call it that.
(A) You committed your first crime when you were 14.
(G) Well, you can put it that way, I mean, if that is a
criminal career. If you have been involved in crime since the age
of 15 onwards, then I guess you can say I've had a criminal
career.
(A) Will you tell me about some of the things you have done?
(G) No, not really. It's been the same over and over again.
There has been pinching of videos, where the "Perkere" have been
our customers, so they have money. If people want to be out here
and have a nice time and be racists and drink beer, and have fun,
then it's quite obvious you don't want to sit in the slammer.
(A) But is the threat of imprisonment something that really
deters people from doing something illegal?
(G) No, it's not prison, that doesn't frighten people.
(A) Is that why you hear stories about people from out here
fighting with knives etc., night after night. Is the reason for
this the fact that they are not afraid of the police getting hold
of them?
(G) Yes, nothing really comes of it, I mean, there are no bad
consequences, so probably that's why. For instance fights and
stabbings and smashing up things ... If you really get into the
joint it would be such a ridiculously small sentence, so it would
be, I mean ... usually we are released the next day. Last time we
caused some trouble over at the pub, they let us out the next
morning. Nothing really comes of it. It doesn't discourage us, but
there were five of us, who just came out and then we had a
celebration for the last guy, who came out yesterday, they
probably don't want to go in again for some time so they probably
won't commit big crimes again.
(A) You would like to move back to {Studsgardsgade} where you
grew up, but we know for sure that it's an environment with a high
crime rate. Would you like your child to grow up like you?
(G) No, and I don't think she will. Firstly, because she is a
girl, statistics show that the risk is not that high, I mean they
probably don't do it, but you don't have to be a criminal because
you live in an environment with a high crime rate. I just wouldn't
accept it, if she was mugging old women and stealing their
handbags.
(A) What if she was among those beating up the immigrants etc.
What then?
(G) That would be okay. I wouldn't have anything against that.
---
(I) We will have to see if the mentality of this family changes
in the next generation. Finally, we would like to say that groups
of young people like this one in STUDSEN at {Osterbro}, have been
formed elsewhere in Copenhagen."
B. Proceedings in the City Court of Copenhagen
12. Following the programme no complaints were made to the
Radio Council, which had competence in such matters, or to
Danmarks Radio but the Bishop of {Alborg} complained to the
Minister of Justice. After undertaking investigations the Public
Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in the City Court of
Copenhagen ({Kobenhavns Byret}) against the three youths
interviewed by the applicant, charging them with a violation of
Article 266 (b) of the Penal Code (straffeloven) (see paragraph 19
below) for having made the statements cited below:
"... the Northern States wanted that the niggers should be free
human beings, man, they are not human beings, they are animals."
"Just take a picture of a gorilla, man, and then look at a
nigger, it's the same body structure and everything, man, flat
forehead and all kinds of things."
"A nigger is not a human being, it's an animal, that goes for
all the other foreign workers as well, Turks, Yugoslavs and
whatever they are called."
"It is the fact that they are "Perkere", that's what we don't
like, right, and we don't like their mentality ... what we don't
like is when they walk around in those Zimbabwe-clothes and then
speak this hula-hula language in the street ..."
"It's drugs they are selling, man, half of the prison
population in "Vestre" are in there because of drugs ... they are
the people who are serving time for dealing drugs ..."
"They are in there, all the "Perkere", because of drugs ..."
The applicant was charged, under Article 266 (b) in conjunction
with Article 23 (see paragraph 19 below), with aiding and abetting
the three youths; the same charge was brought against the head of
the news section of Danmarks Radio, Mr Lasse Jensen.
13. In the City Court counsel for the applicant and Mr Jensen
called for their acquittal. He argued that the conduct of the
applicant and Mr Jensen could in no way be compared to that of the
other three defendants, with whose views they did not sympathise.
They sought merely to provide a realistic picture of a social
problem; in fact the programme only provoked resentment and
aroused pity in respect of the three other defendants, who had
exposed themselves to ridicule on their own terms. Accordingly, it
was by no means the intention of Danmarks Radio to persuade others
to subscribe to the same views as the Greenjackets, rather the
contrary. Under the relevant law a distinction had to be drawn
between the persons who made the statements and the programme
editors, the latter enjoying a special freedom of expression.
Having at that time a broadcasting monopoly, Danmarks Radio was
under a duty to impart all opinions of public interest in a manner
that reflected the speaker's way of expressing himself. The public
also had an interest in being informed of notoriously bad social
attitudes, even those which were unpleasant. The programme was
broadcast in the context of a public debate which had resulted in
press comments, for instance in Information, and was simply an
honest report on the realities of the youths in question. Counsel,
referring inter alia to the above-mentioned article in
Information, also pointed to the fact that no consistent
prosecution policy had been followed in cases of this nature.
14. On 24 April 1987 the City Court convicted the three youths,
one of them for having stated that "niggers" and "foreign workers"
were "animals", and two of them for their assertions in relation
to drugs and "Perkere". The applicant was convicted of aiding and
abetting them, as was Mr Jensen, in his capacity as programme
controller; they were sentenced to pay day-fines ({dagsboder})
totalling 1,000 and 2,000 Danish kroner, respectively, or
alternatively to five days' imprisonment ({hafte}).
As regards the applicant, the City Court found that, following
the article in Information of 31 May 1985, he had visited the
Greenjackets and after a conversation with Mr Axholt, amongst
others, agreed that the three youths should participate in a
television programme. The object of the programme had been to
demonstrate the attitude of the Greenjackets to the racism at
{Osterbro}, previously mentioned in the article in Information,
and to show their social background. Accordingly, so the City
Court held, the applicant had himself taken the initiative of
making the television programme and, further, he had been well
aware in advance that discriminatory statements of a racist nature
were likely to be made during the interview. The interview had
lasted several hours, during which beer, partly paid for by
Danmarks Radio, was consumed. In this connection the applicant had
encouraged the Greenjackets to express their racist views, which,
in so far as they were broadcast on television, in itself
constituted a breach of Article 266 (b) of the Penal Code. The
statements were broadcast without any counterbalancing comments,
after the recordings had been edited by the applicant. He was
accordingly guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of Article
266 (b).
C. Proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark
15. The applicant and Mr Jensen, but not the three
Greenjackets, appealed against the City Court's judgment to the
High Court of Eastern Denmark ({Ostre Landsret}). They essentially
reiterated the submissions made before the City Court and, in
addition, the applicant explained that, although he had suspected
that the Greenjackets' statements were punishable, he had
refrained from omitting these from the programme, considering it
crucial to show their actual attitude. He assumed that they were
aware that they might incur criminal liability by making the
statements and had therefore not warned them of this fact.
16. By judgment of 16 June 1988 the High Court, by five votes
to one, dismissed the appeal.
The dissenting member was of the view that, although the
statements by the Greenjackets constituted offences under Article
266 (b) of the Penal Code, the applicant and Mr Jensen had not
transgressed the bounds of the freedom of speech to be enjoyed by
television and other media, since the object of the programme was
to inform about and animate public discussion on the particular
racist attitudes and social background of the youth group in
question.
D. Proceedings in the Supreme Court
17. With leave the applicant and Mr Jensen appealed from the
High Court judgment to the Supreme Court ({Hojesteret}), which by
four votes to one dismissed the appeal in a judgment of 13
February 1989. The majority held:
"The defendants have caused the publication of the racist
statements made by a narrow circle of persons and thereby made
those persons liable to punishment and have thus, as held by the
City Court and the High Court, violated Article 266 (b) in
conjunction with Article 23 of the Penal Code. [We] do not find
that an acquittal of the defendants could be justified on the
ground of freedom of expression in matters of public interest as
opposed to the interest in the protection against racial
discrimination. [We] therefore vote in favour of confirming the
judgment [appealed from]."
Justice Pontoppidan stated in his dissent:
"The object of the programme was to contribute to information
on an issue - the attitude towards foreigners - which was the
subject of extensive and sometimes emotional public debate. The
programme must be presumed to have given a clear picture of the
Greenjackets' views, of which the public was thus given an
opportunity to be informed and form its own opinion. In view of
the nature of these views, any counterbalancing during or
immediately before or after would not have served a useful
purpose. Although it concerned a relatively small group of people
holding extreme views, the programme had a fair degree of news and
information value. The fact that the defendants took the
initiative to disseminate such views is not of paramount
importance for the assessment of their conduct. In these
circumstances and irrespective of the fact that the statements
rightly have been found to be in violation of Article 266 (b), I
question the advisability of finding the defendants guilty of
aiding and abetting the violation of this provision. I therefore
vote in favour of the defendants' acquittal."
18. When the Supreme Court has rendered judgment in a case
raising important issues of principle it is customary that a
member of the majority publishes a detailed and authoritative
statement of the reasons for the judgment. In keeping with this
custom, Justice Hermann on 20 January 1990 published such a
statement in the Weekly Law Journal (Ugeskrift for {Retsvasen},
1989, p. 399).
As regards the conviction of the applicant and Mr Jensen, the
majority had attached importance to the fact that they had caused
the racist statements to be made public. The applicant's item had
not been a direct report on a meeting. He had himself contacted
the three youths and caused them to make assertions such as those
previously made in Information, which he knew of and probably
expected them to repeat. He had himself cut the recording of the
interview, lasting several hours, down to a few minutes containing
the crude comments. The statements, which would hardly have been
punishable under Article 266 (b) of the Penal Code had they not
been made to a wide circle ("videre kreds") of people, became
clearly punishable as they were broadcast on television on the
applicant's initiative and with Mr Jensen's approval. It was
therefore beyond doubt that they had aided and abetted the
dissemination of the statements.
Acquitting the applicant and Mr Jensen could only be justified
by reasons clearly outweighing the wrongfulness of their actions.
In this connection, the interest in protecting those grossly
insulted by the statements had to be weighed up against that of
informing the public of the statements. Whilst it is desirable to
allow the press the best possible conditions for reporting on
society, press freedom cannot be unlimited since freedom of
expression is coupled with responsibilities.
In striking a balance between the various interests involved,
the majority had regard to the fact that the statements, which
were brought to a wide circle of people, consisted of series of
inarticulate, defamatory remarks and insults spoken by members of
an insignificant group whose opinions could hardly be of interest
to many people. Their news or information value was not such as to
justify their dissemination and therefore did not warrant
acquitting the defendants. This did not mean that extremist views
could not be reported in the press, but such reports must be
carried out in a more balanced and comprehensive manner than was
the case in the television programme in question. Direct reports
from meetings which were a matter of public interest should also
be permitted.
The minority, on the other hand, considered that the right to
information overrode the interests protected by Article 266 (b) of
the Penal Code.
Finally, Justice Hermann noted that the compatibility of the
impugned measures with Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention was
not raised during the trial.
II. Relevant domestic law
A. The Penal Code
19. At the relevant time Article 266 (b) of the Penal Code
provided:
"Any person who, publicly or with the intention of
disseminating it to a wide circle ("videre kreds") of people,
makes a statement, or other communication, threatening, insulting
or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, colour,
national or ethnic origin or belief shall be liable to a fine or
to simple detention or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years."
Article 23, paragraph 1, reads:
"A provision establishing a criminal offence shall apply to any
person who has assisted the commission of the offence by
instigation, advice or action. The punishment may be reduced if
the person in question only intended to give assistance of minor
importance or to strengthen an intent already resolved or if the
offence has not been completed or an intended assistance failed."
B. The 1991 Media Liability Act
20. The 1991 Media Liability Act (Medieansvarsloven, 1991:348),
which entered into force on 1 January 1992, that is after the
events giving rise to the present case, lays down rules inter alia
on criminal liability in respect of television broadcasts. Section
18 provides:
"A person making a statement during a non-direct broadcast
(forskudt udsendelse) shall be responsible for the statement under
general statutory provisions, unless:
(1) the identity of the person concerned does not appear from
the broadcast; or
(2) [that person] has not consented to the statement being
broadcast; or
(3) [he or she] has been promised that [he or she] may take
part [in the broadcast] without [his or her] identity being
disclosed and reasonable precautions have been taken to this
effect.
In the situations described in paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (1)
to (3) above, the editor is responsible for the contents of the
statements even where a violation of the law has occurred without
intent or negligence on his part ..."
Pursuant to section 22:
"A person who reads out or in any other manner conveys a text
or statement, is not responsible for the contents of that text or
statement."
III. Instruments of the United Nations
21. Provisions relating to the prohibition of racial
discrimination and the prevention of propaganda of racist views
and ideas are to be found in a number of international
instruments, for example the 1945 United Nations Charter
(paragraph 2 of the Preamble, Articles 1 para. 3, 13 para. 1 (b),
55 (c) and 76 (c)), the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(Articles 1, 2 and 7) and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (Articles 2 para. 1, 20 para. 2 and 26). The
most directly relevant treaty is the 1965 International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ("the UN
Convention"), which has been ratified by a large majority of the
Contracting States to the European Convention, including Denmark
(9 December 1971). Articles 4 and 5 of that Convention provide:
Article 4
"States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations
which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or
group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt
to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any
form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures
designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such
discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of this Convention, inter
alia:
(a) shall declare an offence punishable by law all
dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,
incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence
or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of
another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any
assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
..."
Article 5
"In compliance with the fundamental obligation laid down in ...
this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to
eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee
the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or
national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in
the enjoyment of the following rights:
...
(d) ...
viii. the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
..."
The effects of the "due regard" clause in Article 4 has given
rise to differing interpretations and the UN Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination ("the UN Committee" - set up
to supervise the implementation of the UN Convention) was divided
in its comments on the applicant's conviction. The present case
had been presented by the Danish Government in a report to the UN
Committee. Whilst some members welcomed it as "the clearest
statement yet, in any country, that the right to protection
against racial discrimination took precedence over the right to
freedom of expression", other members considered that "in such
cases the facts needed to be considered in relation to both
rights" (Report of the Committee to the General Assembly, Official
Records, Forty-Fifth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/45/18), p. 21,
para. 56).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
22. In his application (no. 15890/89) of 25 July 1989 to the
Commission the applicant complained that his conviction violated
his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (art. 10) of
the Convention.
23. On 8 September 1992 the Commission declared the application
admissible. In its report of 8 July 1993 (Article 31) (art. 31),
the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been a
violation of Article 10 (art. 10) (by twelve votes to four).
The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the two
dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an
annex to this judgment <*>.
--------------------------------
<*> Note by the Registrar. For practical reasons this annex
will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume
298 of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of
the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE COURT
24. At the hearing on 20 April 1994 the Government invited the
Court to hold that, as submitted in their memorial, there had been
no violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
AS TO THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of article 10 (art. 10)
25. The applicant maintained that his conviction and sentence
for having aided and abetted the dissemination of racist remarks
violated his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, which reads:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or
morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,
for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of
the judiciary."
26. The Government contested this contention whereas the
Commission upheld it.
27. It is common ground that the measures giving rise to the
applicant's case constituted an interference with his right to
freedom of expression.
It is moreover undisputed that this interference was
"prescribed by law", the applicant's conviction being based on
Articles 266 (b) and 23 (1) of the Penal Code. In this context,
the Government pointed out that the former provision had been
enacted in order to comply with the UN Convention. The
Government's argument, as the Court understands it, is that,
whilst Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention is applicable, the
Court, in applying paragraph 2 (art. 10-2), should consider that
the relevant provisions of the Penal Code are to be interpreted
and applied in an extensive manner, in accordance with the
rationale of the UN Convention (see paragraph 21 above). In other
words, Article 10 (art. 10) should not be interpreted in such a
way as to limit, derogate from or destroy the right to protection
against racial discrimination under the UN Convention.
Finally it is uncontested that the interference pursued a
legitimate aim, namely the "protection of the reputation or rights
of others".
The only point in dispute is whether the measures were
"necessary in a democratic society".
28. The applicant and the Commission were of the view that,
notwithstanding Denmark's obligations as a Party to the UN
Convention (see paragraph 21 above), a fair balance had to be
struck between the "protection of the reputation or rights of
others" and the applicant's right to impart information. According
to the applicant, such a balance was envisaged in a clause
contained in Article 4 of the UN Convention to the effect that
"due regard" should be had to "the principles in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the rights ... in Article 5 of
[the UN] Convention". The clause had been introduced at the
drafting stage because of concern among a number of States that
the requirement in Article 4 (a) that "[States Parties] shall
declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas
based on racial superiority or hatred" was too sweeping and could
give rise to difficulties with regard to other human rights, in
particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In the
applicant's further submission, this explained why the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe, when urging member States
to ratify the UN Convention, had proposed that they add an
interpretative statement to their instrument of ratification,
which would, inter alia, stress that respect was also due for the
rights laid down in the European Convention (Resolution (68) 30
adopted by the Ministers' Deputies on 31 October 1968).
The applicant and the Commission emphasised that, taken in the
context of the broadcast as a whole, the offending remarks had the
effect of ridiculing their authors rather than promoting their
racist views. The overall impression of the programme was that it
sought to draw public attention to a matter of great public
concern, namely racism and xenophobia. The applicant had
deliberately included the offensive statements in the programme,
not with the intention of disseminating racist opinions, but in
order to counter them through exposure. The applicant pointed out
that he tried to show, analyse and explain to his viewers a new
phenomenon in Denmark at the time, that of violent racism
practised by inarticulate and socially disadvantaged youths.
Joined by the Commission, he considered that the broadcast could
not have had any significant detrimental effects on the
"reputation or rights of others". The interests in protecting the
latter were therefore outweighed by those of protecting the
applicant's freedom of expression.
In addition the applicant alleged that had the 1991 Media
Liability Act been in force at the relevant time he would not have
faced prosecution since under the Act it is in principle only the
author of a punishable statement who may be liable. This
undermined the Government's argument that his conviction was
required by the UN Convention and "necessary" within the meaning
of Article 10 (art. 10).
29. The Government contended that the applicant had edited the
Greenjackets item in a sensationalist rather than informative
manner and that its news or information value was minimal.
Television was a powerful medium and a majority of Danes normally
viewed the news programme in which the item was broadcast. Yet the
applicant, knowing that they would incur criminal liability, had
encouraged the Greenjackets to make racist statements and had
failed to counter these statements in the programme. It was too
subtle to assume that viewers would not take the remarks at their
face value. No weight could be attached to the fact that the
programme had given rise to only a few complaints, since, due to
lack of information and insufficient knowledge of the Danish
language and even fear of reprisals by violent racists, victims of
the insulting comments were likely to be dissuaded from
complaining. The applicant had thus failed to fulfil the "duties
and responsibilities" incumbent on him as a television journalist.
The fine imposed upon him was at the lower end of the scale of
sanctions applicable to Article 266 (b) offences and was therefore
not likely to deter any journalist from contributing to public
discussion on racism and xenophobia; it only had the effect of a
public reminder that racist expressions are to be taken seriously
and cannot be tolerated.
The Government moreover disputed that the matter would have
been dealt with differently had the 1991 Media Liability Act been
in force at the material time. The rule that only the author of a
punishable statement may incur liability was subject to exceptions
(see paragraph 20 above); how the applicant's case would have been
considered under the 1991 Act was purely a matter of speculation.
The Government stressed that at all three levels the Danish
courts, which were in principle better placed than the European
Court to evaluate the effects of the programme, had carried out a
careful balancing exercise of all the interests involved. The
review effected by those courts had been similar to that carried
out under Article 10 (art. 10); their decisions fell within the
margin of appreciation to be left to the national authorities and
corresponded to a pressing social need.
30. The Court would emphasise at the outset that it is
particularly conscious of the vital importance of combating racial
discrimination in all its forms and manifestations. It may be
true, as has been suggested by the applicant, that as a result of
recent events the awareness of the dangers of racial
discrimination is sharper today than it was a decade ago, at the
material time. Nevertheless, the issue was already then of general
importance, as is illustrated for instance by the fact that the UN
Convention dates from 1965. Consequently, the object and purpose
pursued by the UN Convention are of great weight in determining
whether the applicant's conviction, which - as the Government have
stressed - was based on a provision enacted in order to ensure
Denmark's compliance with the UN Convention, was "necessary"
within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2).
In the second place, Denmark's obligations under Article 10
(art. 10) must be interpreted, to the extent possible, so as to be
reconcilable with its obligations under the UN Convention. In this
respect it is not for the Court to interpret the "due regard"
clause in Article 4 of the UN Convention, which is open to various
constructions. The Court is however of the opinion that its
interpretation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the European Convention
in the present case is compatible with Denmark's obligations under
the UN Convention.
31. A significant feature of the present case is that the
applicant did not make the objectionable statements himself but
assisted in their dissemination in his capacity of television
journalist responsible for a news programme of Danmarks Radio (see
paragraphs 9 to 11 above). In assessing whether his conviction and
sentence were "necessary", the Court will therefore have regard to
the principles established in its case-law relating to the role of
the press (as summarised in for instance the Observer and Guardian
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no.
216, pp. 29 - 30, para. 59).
The Court reiterates that freedom of expression constitutes one
of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the
safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular
importance (ibid.). Whilst the press must not overstep the bounds
set, inter alia, in the interest of "the protection of the
reputation or rights of others", it is nevertheless incumbent on
it to impart information and ideas of public interest. Not only
does the press have the task of imparting such information and
ideas: the public also has a right to receive them. Were it
otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of
"public watchdog" (ibid.). Although formulated primarily with
regard to the print media, these principles doubtless apply also
to the audiovisual media.
In considering the "duties and responsibilities" of a
journalist, the potential impact of the medium concerned is an
important factor and it is commonly acknowledged that the
audiovisual media have often a much more immediate and powerful
effect than the print media (see Purcell and Others v. Ireland,
Commission's admissibility decision of 16 April 1991, application
no. 15404/89, Decisions and Reports (DR) 70, p. 262). The
audiovisual media have means of conveying through images meanings
which the print media are not able to impart.
At the same time, the methods of objective and balanced
reporting may vary considerably, depending among other things on
the media in question. It is not for this Court, nor for the
national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for
those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be
adopted by journalists. In this context the Court recalls that
Article 10 (art. 10) protects not only the substance of the ideas
and information expressed, but also the form in which they are
conveyed (see the Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 23 May 1991,
Series A no. 204, p. 25, para. 57).
The Court will look at the interference complained of in the
light of the case as a whole and determine whether the reasons
adduced by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and
sufficient and whether the means employed were proportionate to
the legitimate aim pursued (see the above-mentioned Observer and
Guardian judgment, pp. 29 - 30, para. 59). In doing so the Court
has to satisfy itself that the national authorities did apply
standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in
Article 10 (art. 10) and, moreover, that they based themselves on
an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, for instance,
the Schwabe v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no.
242-B, pp. 32 - 33, para. 29).
The Court's assessment will have regard to the manner in which
the Greenjackets feature was prepared, its contents, the context
in which it was broadcast and the purpose of the programme.
Bearing in mind the obligations on States under the UN Convention
and other international instruments to take effective measures to
eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and to prevent and
combat racist doctrines and practices (see paragraph 21 above), an
important factor in the Court's evaluation will be whether the
item in question, when considered as a whole, appeared from an
objective point of view to have had as its purpose the propagation
of racist views and ideas.
32. The national courts laid considerable emphasis on the fact
that the applicant had himself taken the initiative of preparing
the Greenjackets feature and that he not only knew in advance that
racist statements were likely to be made during the interview but
also had encouraged such statements. He had edited the programme
in such a way as to include the offensive assertions. Without his
involvement, the remarks would not have been disseminated to a
wide circle of people and would thus not have been punishable (see
paragraphs 14 and 18 above).
The Court is satisfied that these were relevant reasons for the
purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2).
33. On the other hand, as to the contents of the Greenjackets
item, it should be noted that the TV presenter's introduction
started by a reference to recent public discussion and press
comments on racism in Denmark, thus inviting the viewer to see the
programme in that context. He went on to announce that the object
of the programme was to address aspects of the problem, by
identifying certain racist individuals and by portraying their
mentality and social background. There is no reason to doubt that
the ensuing interviews fulfilled that aim. Taken as a whole, the
feature could not objectively have appeared to have as its purpose
the propagation of racist views and ideas. On the contrary, it
clearly sought - by means of an interview - to expose, analyse and
explain this particular group of youths, limited and frustrated by
their social situation, with criminal records and violent
attitudes, thus dealing with specific aspects of a matter that
already then was of great public concern.
The Supreme Court held that the news or information value of
the feature was not such as to justify the dissemination of the
offensive remarks (see paragraph 18 above). However, in view of
the principles stated in paragraph 31 above, the Court sees no
cause to question the Sunday News Magazine staff members' own
appreciation of the news or information value of the impugned
item, which formed the basis for their decisions to produce and
broadcast it.
34. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the item was
broadcast as part of a serious Danish news programme and was
intended for a well-informed audience (see paragraph 9 above).
The Court is not convinced by the argument, also stressed by
the national courts (see paragraphs 14 and 18 above), that the
Greenjackets item was presented without any attempt to
counterbalance the extremist views expressed. Both the TV
presenter's introduction and the applicant's conduct during the
interviews clearly dissociated him from the persons interviewed,
for example by describing them as members of "a group of extremist
youths" who supported the Ku Klux Klan and by referring to the
criminal records of some of them. The applicant also rebutted some
of the racist statements for instance by recalling that there were
black people who had important jobs. It should finally not be
forgotten that, taken as a whole, the filmed portrait surely
conveyed the meaning that the racist statements were part of a
generally anti-social attitude of the Greenjackets.
Admittedly, the item did not explicitly recall the immorality,
dangers and unlawfulness of the promotion of racial hatred and of
ideas of superiority of one race. However, in view of the above-
mentioned counterbalancing elements and the natural limitations on
spelling out such elements in a short item within a longer
programme as well as the journalist's discretion as to the form of
expression used, the Court does not consider the absence of such
precautionary reminders to be relevant.
35. News reporting based on interviews, whether edited or not,
constitutes one of the most important means whereby the press is
able to play its vital role of "public watchdog" (see, for
instance, the above-mentioned Observer and Guardian judgment, pp.
29 - 30, para. 59). The punishment of a journalist for assisting
in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an
interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to
discussion of matters of public interest and should not be
envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing
so. In this regard the Court does not accept the Government's
argument that the limited nature of the fine is relevant; what
matters is that the journalist was convicted.
There can be no doubt that the remarks in respect of which the
Greenjackets were convicted (see paragraph 14 above) were more
than insulting to members of the targeted groups and did not enjoy
the protection of Article 10 (art. 10) (see, for instance, the
Commission's admissibility decisions in Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek
v. the Netherlands, applications nos. 8348/78 and 8406/78, DR 18,
p. 187; and {Kunen} v. Germany, application no. 12194/86, DR 56,
p. 205). However, even having regard to the manner in which the
applicant prepared the Greenjackets item (see paragraph 32 above),
it has not been shown that, considered as a whole, the feature was
such as to justify also his conviction of, and punishment for, a
criminal offence under the Penal Code.
36. It is moreover undisputed that the purpose of the applicant
in compiling the broadcast in question was not racist. Although he
relied on this in the domestic proceedings, it does not appear
from the reasoning in the relevant judgments that they took such a
factor into account (see paragraphs 14, 17 and 18 above).
37. Having regard to the foregoing, the reasons adduced in
support of the applicant's conviction and sentence were not
sufficient to establish convincingly that the interference thereby
occasioned with the enjoyment of his right to freedom of
expression was "necessary in a democratic society"; in particular
the means employed were disproportionate to the aim of protecting
"the reputation or rights of others". Accordingly the measures
gave rise to a breach of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
II. Application of article 50 (art. 50)
38. Mr Jersild sought just satisfaction under Article 50 (art.
50) of the Convention, according to which:
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party
is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations
arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the
said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the
consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the
Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured
party."
39. The Government accepted parts of his claim. The Commission
offered no comments.
A. Pecuniary damage
40. The applicant claimed 1,000 kroner in respect of the fine
imposed upon him, to be reimbursed by him to Danmarks Radio which
had provisionally paid the fine for him.
41. The Government did not object and the Court finds that the
amount should be awarded.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
42. The applicant requested 20,000 kroner in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage. He maintained that his professional
reputation had been prejudiced and that he had felt distress as a
result of his conviction.
43. The Court observes that the applicant still works with the
Sunday News Magazine at Danmarks Radio and that his employer has
supported him throughout the proceedings, inter alia by paying the
fine (see paragraphs 9 and 40 above) and legal fees (see paragraph
44 below). It agrees with the Government that the finding of a
violation of Article 10 (art. 10) constitutes in itself adequate
just satisfaction in this respect.
C. Costs and expenses
44. The applicant claimed in respect of costs and expenses:
(a) 45,000 kroner for work done in the domestic proceedings by
his lawyer, Mr J. Stockholm;
(b) by way of legal fees incurred in the Strasbourg
proceedings, 13,126.80 kroner for Mrs Johannessen, 6,900 pounds
sterling for Mr Boyle and 50,000 kroner (exclusive 25% value-added
tax) for Mr Trier;
(c) 20,169.20 kroner to cover costs of translation,
interpretation and an expert opinion;
(d) 25,080 kroner, 965.40 pounds and 4,075 French francs in
travel and subsistence expenses incurred in connection with the
hearings before the Commission and Court, as well as miscellaneous
expenses.
Parts of the above costs and expenses had been provisionally
disbursed by Danmarks Radio.
45. The Government did not object to the above claims. The
Court considers that the applicant is entitled to recover the sums
in their entirety. They should be increased by any value-added
taxes that may be chargeable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a
violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;
2. Holds by seventeen votes to two that Denmark is to pay the
applicant, within three months, 1,000 (one thousand) Danish kroner
in compensation for pecuniary damage; and, for costs and expenses,
the sums resulting from the calculations to be made in accordance
with paragraph 45 of the judgment;
3. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 23 September
1994.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Acting Registrar
In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the
Convention and Rule 53 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, the
following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment:
(a) joint dissenting opinion of Mr Ryssdal, Mr Bernhardt, Mr
Spielmann and Mr Loizou;
(b) joint dissenting opinion of Mr {Golcuklu}, Mr Russo and Mr
Valticos;
(c) supplementary joint dissenting opinion of Mr {Golcuklu} and
Mr Valticos.
Initialled: R. R.
Initialled: H. P.
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES RYSSDAL, BERNHARDT,
SPIELMANN AND LOIZOU
1. This is the first time that the Court has been concerned
with a case of dissemination of racist remarks which deny to a
large group of persons the quality of "human beings". In earlier
decisions the Court has - in our view, rightly - underlined the
great importance of the freedom of the press and the media in
general for a democratic society, but it has never had to consider
a situation in which "the reputation or rights of others" (Article
10 para. 2) (art. 10-2) were endangered to such an extent as here.
2. We agree with the majority (paragraph 35 of the judgment)
that the Greenjackets themselves "did not enjoy the protection of
Article 10 (art. 10)". The same must be true of journalists who
disseminate such remarks with supporting comments or with their
approval. This can clearly not be said of the applicant. Therefore
it is admittedly difficult to strike the right balance between the
freedom of the press and the protection of others. But the
majority attributes much more weight to the freedom of the
journalist than to the protection of those who have to suffer from
racist hatred.
3. Neither the written text of the interview (paragraph 11 of
the judgment) nor the video film we have seen makes it clear that
the remarks of the Greenjackets are intolerable in a society based
on respect for human rights. The applicant has cut the entire
interview down to a few minutes, probably with the consequence or
even the intention of retaining the most crude remarks. That being
so, it was absolutely necessary to add at least a clear statement
of disapproval. The majority of the Court sees such disapproval in
the context of the interview, but this is an interpretation of
cryptic remarks. Nobody can exclude that certain parts of the
public found in the television spot support for their racist
prejudices.
And what must be the feelings of those whose human dignity has
been attacked, or even denied, by the Greenjackets? Can they get
the impression that seen in context the television broadcast
contributes to their protection? A journalist's good intentions
are not enough in such a situation, especially in a case in which
he has himself provoked the racist statements.
4. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination probably does not require the punishment
of journalists responsible for a television spot of this kind. On
the other hand, it supports the opinion that the media too can be
obliged to take a clear stand in the area of racial discrimination
and hatred.
5. The threat of racial discrimination and persecution is
certainly serious in our society, and the Court has rightly
emphasised the vital importance of combating racial discrimination
in all its forms and manifestations (paragraph 30 of the
judgment). The Danish courts fully recognised that protection of
persons whose human dignity is attacked has to be balanced against
the right to freedom of expression. They carefully considered the
responsibility of the applicant, and the reasons for their
conclusions were relevant. The protection of racial minorities
cannot have less weight than the right to impart information, and
in the concrete circumstances of the present case it is in our
opinion not for this Court to substitute its own balancing of the
conflicting interests for that of the Danish Supreme Court. We are
convinced that the Danish courts acted inside the margin of
appreciation which must be left to the Contracting States in this
sensitive area. Accordingly, the findings of the Danish courts
cannot be considered as giving rise to a violation of Article 10
(art. 10) of the Convention.
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES {GOLCUKLU},
RUSSO AND VALTICOS
(Translation)
We cannot share the opinion of the majority of the Court in the
Jersild case.
There are indeed two major principles at issue in this case,
one being that of freedom of expression, embodied in Article 10
(art. 10) of the Convention, the other the prohibition on
defending racial hatred, which is obviously one of the
restrictions authorised by paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2)
and, moreover, is the subject of basic human rights documents
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, in
particular the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination. That Convention manifestly cannot be
ignored when the European Convention is being implemented. It is,
moreover, binding on Denmark. It must also guide the European
Court of Human Rights in its decisions, in particular as regards
the scope it confers on the terms of the European Convention and
on the exceptions which the Convention lays down in general terms.
In the Jersild case the statements made and willingly
reproduced in the relevant broadcast on Danish television, without
any significant reaction on the part of the commentator, did
indeed amount to incitement to contempt not only of foreigners in
general but more particularly of black people, described as
belonging to an inferior, subhuman race ("the niggers ... are not
human beings ... Just take a picture of a gorilla ... and then
look at a nigger, it's the same body structure ... A nigger is not
a human being, it's an animal, that goes for all the other foreign
workers as well, Turks, Yugoslavs and whatever they are called.").
While appreciating that some judges attach particular
importance to freedom of expression, the more so as their
countries have largely been deprived of it in quite recent times,
we cannot accept that this freedom should extend to encouraging
racial hatred, contempt for races other than the one to which we
belong, and defending violence against those who belong to the
races in question. It has been sought to defend the broadcast on
the ground that it would provoke a healthy reaction of rejection
among the viewers. That is to display an optimism, which to say
the least, is belied by experience. Large numbers of young people
today, and even of the population at large, finding themselves
overwhelmed by the difficulties of life, unemployment and poverty,
are only too willing to seek scapegoats who are held up to them
without any real word of caution; for - and this is an important
point - the journalist responsible for the broadcast in question
made no real attempt to challenge the points of view he was
presenting, which was necessary if their impact was to be
counterbalanced, at least for the viewers.
That being so, we consider that by taking criminal measures -
which were, moreover, moderate ones - the Danish judicial
institutions in no way infringed Article 10 (art. 10) of the
Convention.
SUPPLEMENTARY JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF
JUDGES {GOLCUKLU} AND VALTICOS
(Translation)
We have voted against point 2 of the operative provisions of
the judgment because we are so firmly convinced that the applicant
was wrong not to react against the defence of racism that we
consider it wholly unjustified to award him any compensation
whatever.
|
