. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which... must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly...
(ii) The adjective "necessary", within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, implies the existence of a "pressing social need". The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10.
(iii) The Court's task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the Court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient"... In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts..."
25. In examining the particular circumstances of the case, the Court must weigh a number of factors in the balance when reviewing the proportionality of the measure complained of. First, it notes that the applicant was a journalist. The Court reiterates in this connection that the press fulfils an essential function in a democratic society. Although it must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-I, and Bladet {Tromso} and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], No. 21980/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-III). Journalistic freedom covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (No. 1), 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A No. 313).
26. The Court also takes into account the fact that the impugned article was published in early 2003 and contained an overview of the political scene in the region, summing up the political events of the preceding year. It provided comments on the interplay between the political forces and referred to the roles played by prominent politicians and public servants. In the Court's opinion, the article raised important issues and the applicant was entitled to bring them to the attention of the public through the press.
27. The Court further notes that the thrust of the applicant's criticism in the excerpt under consideration was directed against Regional Prosecutor B. who, being a public servant with the task of contributing to the proper administration of justice, should have enjoyed public confidence and was to be protected by the State from unfounded accusations (see {Lesnik} v. Slovakia, No. 35640/97, §§ 54 - 55 in fine, ECHR 2003-IV). However, the Court reiterates that the limits of acceptable criticism in respect of civil servants exercising their power are wider than in relation to private individuals and the national margin of appreciation with regard to the protection of their reputation is circumscribed by the interest of a democratic society in ensuring and maintaining a free press.
28
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15