The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 1 February issued a unanimous decision declaring the application of a French MP against his earlier conviction for contempt of court to be inadmissible. The ECtHR's decision is final.

'We've had enough'

The case, Meslot v. France (application no. 50538/12), was brought by Damien Meslot, a member for the French Parliament from Belfort until 2017.

At a public meeting in 2007 during the election campaign, Meslot said that had no respect for a certain prosecutor and judge, saying they had "turned into political commissars, exceeded their remit and brought the judiciary into disrepute. They prefer to wage war on right-wing MPs rather than tackling thugs. Well, I will get those people transferred, drive them out of the Territoire de Belfort, because they cannot be trusted. Did you hear the latest? Two armed robbers were arrested … and you know the first thing [the judge] did? …He released the two robbers… We’ve had enough of…leftie judges who go against the will of the people and obstruct the work of the police."

This statement was transmitted by the radio station Radio France Bleu Belfort and reproduced in part by the daily newspaper Le Pays.

Meslot was convicted of contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine of €700, a sum of €1 to the civil party for damages, and €3,588 in respect of irrecoverable costs. The Dijon Court of Appeal upheld the guilty verdict but increased the fine to €1,000 and the total amount of irrecoverable costs to €5,023.20. The Court of Cassation dismissed Meslot’s appeal on points of law.

On to Strasbourg

Having exhausted his legal challenges in France, Meslot appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg claiming a violation of Article 10, which protects freedom of expression.

Although the ECtHR noted that there is little room for restriction on Article 10, the court determined that the applicant’s conviction for contempt of court and the penalty imposed on him had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, namely to protect the judge and judiciary from an attack against its integrity.

The court said that some interference with the right to freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society in order to protect other people’s reputations and to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

A personal attack

The ECtHR noted that the comments came some months after the judge had charged Meslot with electoral fraud, and the latter's comments against the judge were both aggressive and personal in nature.

The ECtHR determined that the comments made by the applicant had been intended to harm the judge personally and thus had not been objectively necessary in terms of public information.

The court held that the imposition of a fine on the applicant had not been excessive, particularly as it had not affected his political career.