Barfod v. Denmark

Last updated
Barfod v. Denmark
European stars.svg
Submitted October 16 1987
Decided February 22 1989
Full case name Barfod v. Denmark
Case number11508/85
Case TypeFree Speech
Chamberthe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")
Language of ProceedingsEnglish
Nationality of partiesDanish
Ruling
Was not a violation of Amendment 10
Court composition
President
Rolv Ryssdal
Judges

Barfod v. Denmark (1989), was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Barfod in his accusation that the Danish government was not protecting his freedom of expression when writing an article suggesting that the judges who ruled in a specific case were incompetent to make fair and just decisions. The defendant was convicted on the basis that he wrote in the publication “Grønland Dansk” that two of the judges who, were deciding in a case regarding taxation of Danish nationals working on a base in Greenland, [1] were biased in deciding the case. Mr. Barfod wrote, “Most of the Local Government’s members could ... afford the time to watch that the two Greenland lay judges - who are by the way both employed directly by the Local Government, as director of a museum and as consultant in urban housing affairs - did their duty, and this they did. The vote was two to one in favor of the Local Government and with such a bench of judges it does not require much imagination to guess who voted how." [2] This accusation was seen as a potential for damage to their reputation therefore “the applicant was subsequently charged with defamation of character within the meaning of Article 71(1) of the Greenland Penal Code before the District Court of Narssaq” [3] This case was then appealed and brought to the High Court for Eastern Denmark to then eventually be brought before the High Court of Greenland as it more formally fit the case. They once again did not side with Mr. Barfod. On October 16, 1987 the case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. In a 6 to 1 decision the court found that there was no violation to Mr. Barfod’s right to freedom of speech.

European Court of Human Rights Supranational court in Strasbourg, France, established by the European Convention on Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is a supranational or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols.

The High Court of Greenland is the central court of Greenland, located in the capital city, Nuuk. It exists alongside 18 other magistrates' courts and has supreme authority, handling most major cases.

Contents

Background

In 1979 the local government in Greenland decided to tax Danish citizens who were employed on an American base in Greenland. This created much pushback from people who were affected by this taxation as they felt “that the decision was illegal on the grounds, inter alia, that they did not have the right to vote in local elections in Greenland and did not receive any benefits from the Greenland authorities”. [4] Three judges heard the case and, “in its judgment of 28 January 1981… the High Court unanimously found for the Local Government; this judgment was subsequently upheld by the High Court for Eastern Denmark on 8 September 1983”. [5] After this decision was made, Mr. Barfod wrote an opinion piece in ‘Grønland Dansk’ criticizing the judge’s rulings. He stated that, "most of the Local Government’s members could ... afford the time to watch that the two Greenland lay judges - who are by the way both employed directly by the Local Government, as director of a museum and as consultant in urban housing affairs - did their duty, and this they did. The vote was two to one in favor of the Local Government and with such a bench of judges it does not require much imagination to guess who voted how." [6] After his words were published, he was charged with defamation of character. On December 9, 1983, the hearings for the case started and this is where Mr. Barfod confirmed that he in fact made these remarks. The court convicted him and charged him 2000 Danish Kroner. This is where Mr. Barfod appealed his case to the High Court for Eastern Denmark, when was then turned over to the High Court of Greenland. The decision was upheld as it states here in the Greenland Penal Code.

By these statues Mr. Barfod was not having his freedom of speech right be taken away, because he violated the Greenland Penal Code. He then brought this case to the European Court of Human Rights, as he believed his freedom of speech was not being protected by the decision made in the courts.

Judgement

Majority Opinion

In the final decision the court, concluded with a 6 to 1 vote stating, "there was no violation of Article 10". [8] This case was heard by judges, Mr. J. Cremona, Mrs. D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr. F. Gölcüklü, Mr. F. Matscher, Mr. B. Walsh and Mr. B. Gomard in the city of Strasbourg and a decision was made in February 1989. It was stated in the case, "The Court cannot accept this argument. The lay judges exercised judicial functions. The impugned statement was not a criticism of the reasoning in the judgment of 28 January 1981, but rather, as found by the High Court in its judgment of 3 July 1984, a defamatory accusation against the lay judges personally, which was likely to lower them in public esteem and was put forward without any supporting evidence (see paragraph 13 above). In view of these considerations, the political context in which the tax case was fought cannot be regarded as relevant for the question of proportionality". [9] Due to the fact that Mr. Barfod allegedly attacked the judges' personally, which could ruin their reputation and call into question their credibility, he was charged with the crime.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge Gölcüklü dissented on this case. His reasoning for disagreeing with the decision states,

He agrees with Mr. Barfod in the fact that the judges might have had motivation for the decision they made regarding the initial taxation case when he says, "Although these two lay judges were not strictly speaking politicians, I consider that this case has political overtones inasmuch as it involved criticism of a specific judicial system, namely the Greenland judiciary and its composition, which, in the applicant’s view, did not inspire public confidence". [11] In his dissent he cites Article 62 of the Danish Constitution which states, "Den dømmende magts udøvelse kan kun ordnes ved lov. Særdomstole med dømmende myndighed kan ikke nedsættes" [12] (This translates to, the administration of justice shall remain separated from the Executive and the rules in this respect shall be laid down by law [13] ). He also speaks upon the fact that what Mr. Barfod has said, is more aggressive, but similar to what the courts have admits to happening with these judges and how they probably should have stepped down as he stated,

He disagrees with the notion that Mr. Barfod caused defamation of character because in his opinion he thought Mr. Barfod was not attacking them in their ability to judge but instead just in this particular decision.

Media/Criticism

In an article on lawteacher.net it was said, "The case of Barfod v Denmark does show that the court may provide a lesser level of protection to the press". [15] This is just one example of how the court protected the judges and not the freedom on speech, which is supposed to be protected under Article 10. This was an article on human rights law in European courts.

In the book Political Libels: A Comparative Study , it states, "The ECtHR took a markedly less protective attitude towards freedom of 'political' expression in Barfod v. Denmark... The ECtHR's judgment was brief and not clearly reasoned". [16] There was again criticism to this case with the judgement that was given and the reasoning as to why his freedom of speech was taken away.

Comparative Cases

The decision in the case of Barfod v. Denmark had a similar outcome to that of the US case Murphy v. Boston Herald . In Murphy v. Boston Herald it dealt with alleged defamation to a judge, which also happened in the Barfod case. In the US case, it was ruled in favor of Murphy, the judge, as stated, "The jury's verdict in this case reflects their conclusion that Wedge and the Herald defamed the plaintiff, and that they did so with actual malice and an awareness that they were enabling a campaign by the district attorney for the Bristol district to discredit the plaintiff by attacking the core attributes a judge must possess — even temperament, lack of any bias, fairness at all times, and a particular sensitivity to the plight of victims of crimes". [17] Similarly to the Barfod case the judges sided with the judges who were allegedly defamed over the freedom of speech and expression.

Related Research Articles

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366, known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Titina Loizidou, and consequently all other refugees, have the right to return to their former properties. The ECHR ruled that Turkey had violated Loizidou's human rights under Article I of Protocol I of the European Convention on Human Rights, that she should be allowed to return to her home and that Turkey should pay damages to her. Turkey initially ignored this ruling.

Dudgeon v the United Kingdom (1981) was a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, which held that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which criminalised male homosexual acts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was significant

  1. as the first successful case before the ECtHR on the criminalisation of male homosexuality
  2. as the case which led to legislation in 1982 bringing the law on male homosexuality in Northern Ireland into line with that in Scotland and in England and Wales ;
  3. as a lead-in to Norris v. Ireland, a later case before the ECtHR argued by Mary Robinson, which challenged the continued application of the same 1885 law in the Republic of Ireland; and,
  4. for setting the legal precedent that ultimately resulted in the Council of Europe requiring that no member state could criminalise male or female homosexual behaviour.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

Mosley v United Kingdom [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30; was a 2011 decision in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An application to the court was made by Max Mosley, former president of the FIA following his successful breach of confidence legal case against the News of the World. In the case the court unanimously rejected the proposition that Article 8 required member states to legislate to prevent newspapers printing stories regarding individual's private lives without first warning the individuals concerned, instead holding that it fell within each state's margin of appreciation to determine whether to legislate on this matter.

Latvian Human Rights Committee organization

Latvian Human Rights Committee is a human rights non-governmental organization in Latvia. It is member of international human rights and anti-racism NGOs FIDH, AEDH. Co-chairpersons of LHRC are Vladimirs Buzajevs and Natalija Jolkina. According to the authors of the study "Ethnopolitics in Latvia", former CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ole Espersen "had visited LHRC various times and had used mostly the data of that organisation in his views on Latvia".

<i>Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd</i>

Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that governs the use of injunctions against publication in alleged defamation cases. Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing alleged links with Peter Foster; while they claimed to have emails showing links, she asserted that they were false. The test at the time for a preliminary injunction in defamation cases was Bonnard v Perryman, where it was established that the applicant has to show "a real prospect of success" at trial. The Human Rights Act 1998 established that judges should consider whether applicants are "more likely than not" to succeed at trial, a test applied to confidentiality cases in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd. Greene claimed that the Cream test should be applied rather than the Bonnard test.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech.

Zakharov v. Russia was a 2015 court case before the European Court of Human Rights involving Roman Zakharov and the Russian Federation. The Court ruled that Russia's legal provisions governing communications surveillance did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness or abuse, and that therefore a violation took place of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Chiragov and Others v. Armenia</i>

Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property to Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of former Soviet Azerbaijan. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.

Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland was a case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgement concerning whether mandatory mixed-gender swimming for girls against the will of their Muslim parents who objected on religious grounds violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights by contravening religious freedom. On 10 January 2017 the court unanimously found that the convention had not been violated.

Tourancheau and July v. France is a free speech case that was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. Patricia Tourancheau, a journalist, and Serge July, the editor of the French newspaper Libération were prosecuted, convicted and fined 10,000 Francs each for violating a statute of 1881, the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881, which prohibits the publication of any documents concerned with criminal or correctional proceedings prior to their reading in a public audience. Tourancheau and July adamantly claimed that the law, particularly Article 38, was in direct dispute with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Once the case reached the European Court of Human Rights after appealing the French Supreme Court decision, which upheld Tourancheau and July's prosecution, the European Court of Human Rights found that the ruling did not violate Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Peruzzi v. Italy</i>

Peruzzi v. Italy (2015), ECHR Case No. 39294/09 was a decision made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that specifically addressed anti-judicial speech. The case involved Piero Antonio Peruzzi, an Italian lawyer, who was initially sentenced to four years in prison by the Lucca District Court for defaming a judge. Peruzzi appealed this decision to the Appellate Court of Genoa, and was instead fined and required to pay an additional sum to the judge subject to his criticism. On May 25, 2009, Peruzzi brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that his conviction was a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On June 30, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights made the decision that the conviction of Peruzzi by the Genoa Court was not disproportionate and that his Article 10 rights to freedom of expression were not violated.


E.S v. Austria was a case held before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case where the court upheld a domestic court's fine on an Austrian woman who had called Mohammed a pedophile.

References

  1. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  2. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  3. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  4. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  5. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  6. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  7. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  8. ↑ Barfod v. Denmark. HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  9. ↑ Barfod v. Denmark. HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web.
  10. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web
  11. ↑ "Barfod v. Denmark." HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web
  12. ↑ "Danmarks Riges Grundlov". www.grundloven.dk. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  13. ↑ Barfod v. Denmark. HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web
  14. ↑ Barfod v. Denmark. HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights. N.p., 22 Feb. 1989. Web
  15. ↑ "Human Rights Law". www.lawteacher.net. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  16. ↑ Loveland, Ian. Political Libels: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Hart, 2000. Web.
  17. ↑ Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc., 449, February 8, 2007, p. 42, retrieved 2019-10-24
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.