Право
Навигация
Реклама
Ресурсы в тему
Реклама

Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси

Новые документы

Законодательство Российской Федерации

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СУДА ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА ОТ 23.09.1994 ЙЕРСИЛД (JERSILD) ПРОТИВ ДАНИИ [РУС. (ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ), АНГЛ.]

(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад


                                               [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
   возложеную  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.
   
   

<<< Назад

 
Реклама

Новости законодательства России


Тематические ресурсы

Новости сайта "Тюрьма"


Новости

СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости

Рейтинг@Mail.ru


Сайт управляется системой uCoz