## Facts

- Peter Michael Lingens, an Austrian journalist and editor of the political magazine *Profil*, published two articles criticizing Federal Chancellor Bruno Kreisky’s public defense of politician Friedrich Peter, who was alleged to have served in an SS unit during World War II.
- The articles used harsh evaluative terms about Kreisky’s conduct, including characterizations such as “basest opportunism,” “immoral,” and “undignified,” and argued that Kreisky showed indifference toward Nazi victims.
- Kreisky initiated private criminal prosecutions for defamation under Austrian criminal law prohibiting accusations of contemptible character or dishonorable/immoral conduct.
- Under the applicable Austrian scheme, the principal defense required proof of the truth of the impugned statements.
- Austrian courts convicted Lingens, imposed a fine, and ordered confiscation of the relevant magazine issues; appeals ultimately left the conviction intact (with a reduced fine).
- Lingens challenged the conviction under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging unjustified interference with freedom of expression.

## Issues

1. Whether Austria’s criminal defamation conviction, fine, and confiscation order for a journalist’s political criticism of a leading politician constituted an interference “necessary in a democratic society” to protect reputation under Article 10(2).
2. Whether requiring a defendant to prove the “truth” of value-judgment criticisms (as opposed to provable factual assertions) imposed a disproportionate burden on freedom of expression.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights held that Austria violated Article 10.
- The Court found the interference pursued a legitimate aim (protection of reputation) but was not “necessary in a democratic society.”
- The Court emphasized that the speech occurred in a political debate of strong public interest and targeted a high-ranking politician required to tolerate wider criticism than a private individual.
- It held that compelling proof of the truth of evaluative characterizations was an excessive restriction because value judgments are not susceptible of proof.
- The criminal conviction, fine, and confiscation were deemed disproportionate and capable of chilling press participation in public debate.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction for losses and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Political expression and debate on matters of public interest receive heightened protection under Article 10; restrictions require particularly weighty justification.
- Public officials and politicians must accept wider limits of criticism than private individuals.
- Defamation analysis must distinguish statements of fact (provable) from value judgments (not provable as “true” or “false” in the same way).
- A legal requirement to prove the truth of value judgments, especially where the factual basis is not disputed and the speaker acts in good faith, is likely disproportionate under Article 10.
- Criminal sanctions and confiscation measures against the press for political criticism may create a chilling effect and will be closely scrutinized for proportionality and pressing social need.

## Conclusion

Austria’s criminal defamation conviction and related sanctions against Lingens for harsh value-judgment criticism of the Federal Chancellor, imposed under a framework demanding proof of the truth of those evaluations, were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, violating Article 10.


Lingens v. Austria, 8 Eur. H.R. Rep. 407 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1986)