European Court of Justice rules in favor of Switzerland in the Jagmetti case
Switzerland did not violate the right to freedom of expression by convicting a journalist. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reached this conclusion on Monday.
Switzerland has not violated the right to freedom of expression by convicting a journalist. This was the conclusion reached by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on Monday. The case revolves around the journalist Martin Stoll, who in 1997 quoted from a confidential paper by the then Swiss ambassador to the USA, Carlo Jagmetti. The two articles in the Sonntagszeitung caused a stir in the course of the debate on dormant assets. Jagmetti came under pressure because of the aggressive vocabulary used in his report and resigned.
Stoll was fined 800 francs by the Zurich judiciary for publishing official secret negotiations; the Federal Supreme Court confirmed this verdict a year later. Stoll lodged an appeal against the judgment with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In 2006, its fourth division came to the conclusion that Switzerland had violated freedom of expression with the fine (see
). Switzerland referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. On Monday, this chamber came to the conclusion by twelve votes to five that freedom of expression had not been violated after all.
The Strasbourg judges were of the opinion that the public had a fundamental interest in the information from Stoll's article. However, the publication of the passages in question from the Jagmetti report could have had a negative impact on the course of the Swiss negotiations. The articles were therefore likely to damage Swiss interests.
Overall, the court judged Stoll's contribution to the public debate to be minor. His texts were highly simplistic and abbreviated. The texts and the sensationalist titles were not appropriate to the topic of dormant assets.
The court thus shared the opinion of the Swiss government and the Press Council that Stoll's primary aim was not to inform the public, but to scandalize the Jagmetti report. The fine imposed was therefore not disproportionate to the objective pursued.
Stoll was fined 800 francs by the Zurich judiciary for publishing official secret negotiations; the Federal Supreme Court confirmed this verdict a year later. Stoll lodged an appeal against the judgment with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In 2006, its fourth division came to the conclusion that Switzerland had violated freedom of expression with the fine (see
). Switzerland referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. On Monday, this chamber came to the conclusion by twelve votes to five that freedom of expression had not been violated after all.
The Strasbourg judges were of the opinion that the public had a fundamental interest in the information from Stoll's article. However, the publication of the passages in question from the Jagmetti report could have had a negative impact on the course of the Swiss negotiations. The articles were therefore likely to damage Swiss interests.
Overall, the court judged Stoll's contribution to the public debate to be minor. His texts were highly simplistic and abbreviated. The texts and the sensationalist titles were not appropriate to the topic of dormant assets.
The court thus shared the opinion of the Swiss government and the Press Council that Stoll's primary aim was not to inform the public, but to scandalize the Jagmetti report. The fine imposed was therefore not disproportionate to the objective pursued.
