Incitement to racial or religious discrimination or hatred
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." 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 [*]. 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 Künen 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.
The Court drew a distinction between the members of the “Greenjackets”, who had made openly racist remarks, and the applicant, who had sought to expose, analyse and explain this particular group of youths and to deal with “specific aspects of a matter that already then was of great public concern”. The documentary as a whole had not been aimed at propagating racist views and ideas, but at informing the public about a social issue. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.