12 Krone Verlag GmbH contra Austria - Publicitate comercial. Libertatea de exprimare.

CEDO, secia I, hotrrea Krone Verlag GmbH contra Austria (nr 3), 11 decembrie 2003, 39069/97

Curtea poate s controleze anumite interdicii ale unor acte de publicitate comercial.

Societatea reclamant este proprietar al unui cotidian regional Neue Kronenzeitung care a publicat, cu scopul de mri numrul de abonamente, nite anunuri publicitare n care preul abonamentelor era comparat cu cel unui ziar concurent Salzburger Nachrichten iar propriul ziar era numit cel mai bun jurnal. Salzburger Nachrichten a cerut n instan o ordonan preedinial prin care s se suspende campania publicitar. Aciunea a fost admis pe motiv c anunurile publicitare erau mincinoase ntruct comparau ziare cu un profil editorial diferit. Art. 10 (Libertatea de exprimare). Ingerina statului n exercitarea libertii de expresie a reclamantei era prevzut de lege legea concurenei neloiale i viza protecia drepturilor altuia. innd de importanta marj de apreciere de care se bucur statele n materia concurenei neloiale i a publicitii, sarcina Curii se mrginete la verificarea proporionalitii msurii. Hotrrea instanei a avut consecine destul de serioase ntruct a obligat reclamanta ca n viitoarele materiale publicitare s prezinte n detaliu diferenele de stil editorial ntre cele dou jurnale, astfel c devenea inutil compararea preurilor. n plus, punerea ei n practic era imposibil, ntruct ridica multe probleme societii reclamante. n consecin, Curtea a constatat c msura nu a fost proporional, iar art. 10 a fost violat.

http://translate.google.ro/translate?hl=ro&sl=en&u=http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rightsproject/humanrightscasesandmaterials/cases/regionalcases/europeancourtofhumanrights/nr/553&ei=x aVjT8_TKMb3sgajiJHABQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ7gEwAA&prev=/search %3Fq%3D39069/97%26hl%3Dro%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D653%26prmd%3Dimvnsb

Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG c. Austriei, Cererea nr 39069/97, Hotrrea din 11 decembrie 2003

Seciunea I HOTRREA

STRASBOURG

Aceast hotrre va deveni definitiv n condiiile prevzute la articolul 44 2 din Convenie. Ea poate fi supus unei revizuiri editoriale. n cazul de Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG Austria V., Curtea European a Drepturilor Omului (Seciunea a Patra), statund n Camera compus din: Dl CL Rozakis, preedinte, Domnul E. Levits, Dna S. Botoucharova, Dl A. KOVLER, Domnul V. ZAGREBELSKY, Doamna E. Steiner, Domnul K. HAJIYEV, judectori, i domnul S. Nielsen, grefier adjunct de secie, Delibernd cu uile nchise la 20 martie 2003 i 20 noiembrie 2003, Pronun urmtoarea hotrre, care a fost adoptat la ultima dat menionat:

PROCEDURA 1. La originea cauzei se afl o cerere (nr. 39069/97) mpotriva Republicii Austria, a depus cu Comisia European a Drepturilor Omului ("Comisia"), n temeiul fostului articol 25 din Convenia pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i a libertilor fundamentale (" Convenia ") de ctre Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG, proprietarul cotidianului Neue Kronenzeitung, cu sediul n Viena (" compania reclamant "), la 18 septembrie 1997. 2. Compania reclamant a fost reprezentat de dl R. Fiebinger, un avocat din Viena. Guvernul austriac ("Guvernul") a fost reprezentat de ctre Agentul su, ambasadorul H. Winkler, ef al Departamentului de Drept Internaional de la Ministerul Federal pentru Afaceri Externe. 3. Compania reclamant a susinut c ordin emis mpotriva sa n temeiul Legii concurenei neloiale a fost o nclcare a dreptului su la libertatea de exprimare, n sensul articolului 10 al Conveniei, n msura n care se interzice compania reclamant de la compararea preurilor de vnzare a Kronenzeitung Neue i Salzburger Nachrichten fr a dezvlui diferenele n stilurile lor de raportare n ceea ce privete acoperirea a politicii interne sau externe,, cultura economie, tiin, sntate, problemele de mediu i de drept. 4. Cererea a fost transmis Curii la data de 1 noiembrie 1998, cnd Protocolul nr 11 la Convenia a intrat n vigoare (articolul 5 2 din Protocolul nr 11). 5. Cererea a fost repartizat Seciei a treia a Curii (articolul 52 1 din Regulamentul Curii). 6. La 1 noiembrie 2001 Curtea a modificat componena seciilor sale (articolul 25 1). Acest caz a fost atribuit primei secii remaniat (articolul 52 1). n cadrul acestei seciuni, Camera care va examina cauza (articolul 27 1 din Convenie) a fost constituit n conformitate cu articolul 26 1. 7. Printr-o decizie din 20 martie 2003, Curtea a declarat cererea admisibil. 8. Reclamantul i Guvernul au prezentat observaii asupra fondului (articolul 59 1). Camera a decis, dup consultarea prilor, c nu audiere privind fondul cauzei a fost necesar (articolul 59 3 in fine), prile au rspuns n scris la observaiile celorlali.

N FAPT

I. CIRCUMSTANELE CAUZEI 9. Compania reclamant, Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG, o societate cu rspundere limitat, cu sediul n Viena, este proprietarul de cotidianul Neue Kronenzeitung. Editorul su este Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG (denumit n continuare " editor "). Compania reclamant este reprezentat n faa Curii de ctre dl R. Fiebinger, un avocat din Viena. 10. La 9 i 11 decembrie 1994, ediia local de la Salzburg din Kronenzeitung Neue a publicat un anun pentru abonamente la ziarul n care a comparat ratele sale lunare de abonament, cu cele de un alt ziar

regional, Salzburger Nachrichten. n conformitate cu anunul, Kronenzeitung Neue a fost ziarul "cel mai bun" local. 11. La 13 decembrie 1994 Salzburger Nachrichten aplicat la Tribunalul Regional din Salzburg (Landesgericht) pentru un ordin preliminar (einstweilige Verfgung), n conformitate cu seciunile 1 i 2 din Legea concurenei neloiale (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) fa de compania reclamant i Publisher. Acesta a solicitat ca societatea reclamant i editorul s fie obligat s se abin de la publicarea anunului. 12. La 29 decembrie 1994, Tribunalul Regional din Salzburg, a emis un ordin preliminar impotriva companiei reclamante i editor pentru a pstra status quo-ul n timpul procedurii. Pe cale de atac de ctre compania reclamant i editor, Curtea de Apel Linz (Oberlandesgericht) a anulat decizia Curii Regionale. Curtea a afirmat, printre altele, c cele dou ziare au fost concureni n aceeai pia i pentru cititori aceeai. La 23 mai 1995, Curtea Suprem (Oberster Gerichtshof), n recurs de ctre Salzburger Nachrichten, a emis un ordin preliminar. Instana a constatat c anunul a fost neltoare. Aceasta a considerat c Salzburger Nachrichten a fost un "ziar de calitate" i Kronenzeitung Neue nu a fost i c aceste diferene nu au fost neaprat cunoscute de consumatori. n plus, n circumstanele specifice ale cazului, de asteptare Neue Kronenzeitung ziarul "cel mai bun" local se ridica la denigrarea Salzburger Nachrichten. 13. n aciunea principal, care au urmat, Salzburg Regional Curtea a dispus companiei reclamante i editor s se abin de la publicarea prezentului anun, atta timp ct aceasta nu a furnizat informaii n acelai timp, pe care a fcut posibil pentru a evita orice declaraie valoare, n general, peiorativ sau orice alt riscul de a induce n eroare consumatorii. n al doilea rnd, ei s-au ordonat s nu se refer la preul de vnzare al Salzburger Nachrichten ca "scump". n al treilea rnd, au fost ordonat s se abin de la compararea preurilor de vnzare ale celor dou ziare, fr a dezvlui, n acelai timp diferenele n stilurile lor de raportare respective, n special n ceea ce privete acoperirea a politicii interne sau externe,, cultura economie, tiin, sntate, mediu problemele i de drept, i fr a face referire, de asemenea, s Kronenzeitung Neue ca un mediu de divertisment, orientat spre comunicare i Salzburger Nachrichten ca un mediu orientate n principal spre informare. n sfrit, aceasta le-a ordonat s publice decizia. 14. La 21 martie 1997, Curtea de Apel Linz, care s permit o cale de atac n parte de ctre compania reclamant i editor, limitat al treilea de ncetare a ordinea n care compania reclamant i editorul trebuie s se abin de la compararea preurilor de vnzare ale celor dou ziare, fr a dezvlui diferenele n stilurile lor de raportare n ceea ce privete acoperirea a politicii interne sau externe,, cultura economie, tiin, sntate, problemele de mediu i de drept. Aceasta a confirmat decizia instanei inferioare cu privire la sucursalele rmase de ordine. Instana a considerat c a fost o chestiune de cunotine comune c ambele ziare au concurat n aceeai pia. n ceea ce privete diferenele de calitate ntre ziare i argumentul c cititorii nu au fost familiarizai cu aceste diferene, Curtea de Apel Linz referire la decizia Curii Supreme de Justiie din 23 mai 1995.

15. La 28 aprilie 1997, compania reclamant i editorul depus un recurs extraordinar mpotriva acestei decizii, bazndu-se pe articolul 10 al Conveniei. 16. La 13 mai 1997, Curtea Suprem a respins ca inadmisibil recurs extraordinar pe puncte de drept. Decizia a fost comunicat prilor la data de 16 iunie 1997.

II. RELEVANT de legislaia naional 17. Seciunile relevante din Legea concurenei neloiale dup cum urmeaz:

Seciunea 1

"Orice persoan care, n cursul de afaceri se angajeaz, n scopuri de concuren, acioneaz contrar practicilor cinstite, ar putea fi obligat s renune la angajarea n continuare n aceste acte i tras la rspundere pentru daune.

Seciunea 2

Orice persoan care, n cursul de afaceri, n scopuri de concuren, face declaraii care ar putea induce n eroare cu privire la condiiile comerciale, n special pe calitatea, originea, metoda de producie sau de calcul al preurilor de bunuri sau servicii unice sau ntregul stoc, pe preurilor de liste, despre modul i sursele de aprovizionare, cu privire la deinerea de premii, despre ocazia sau scopul vnzrii sau despre cantitatea de stoc, poate fi obligat s renune la a face n continuare aceste declaraii i, dac el tia sau trebuie s fi tiut c au fost de natur s induc n eroare, tras la rspundere pentru daune. Cu toate acestea, comparnd preurile din anunuri este autorizat, n cazul n care aceasta nu este contrar la aceast seciune sau seciunea 1. "

LEGEA

I. PRETINSA VIOLARE A ARTICOLULUI 10 DIN CONVENIE 18. Compania reclamant sa plns c dreptul su la libertatea de exprimare n conformitate cu articolul 10 al Conveniei a fost nclcat prin ordin de instanele austriece, n msura n care interzice compararea preurilor de vnzare ale Kronenzeitung Neue i Salzburger Nachrichten fr a dezvlui diferenele n

stilurile lor de raportare ar fi o acoperire n ceea ce privete a politicii interne sau externe,, cultura economie, tiin, sntate, problemele de mediu i de drept. Articolul 10 prevede, dup cum urmeaz:

"1. Orice persoan are dreptul la libertatea de exprimare. Acest drept cuprinde libertatea de opinie i de a primi i de a comunica informaii i idei fr amestecul autoritilor publice i indiferent de frontiere. Prezentul articol nu mpiedic Statele de la solicitarea de autorizare de radiodifuziune, de cinematografie sau de televiziune.

2. Exercitarea acestor liberti, din moment ce comport ndatoriri i responsabiliti, poate fi supus unor formaliti, condiii, restricii sau sanciuni prevzute de lege i sunt necesare ntr-o societate democratic, n interesul securitii naionale, integritii teritoriale sau sigurana public, pentru prevenirea tulburare sau infraciunilor, pentru protecia sntii sau a moralei, pentru protecia reputaiei sau a drepturilor altora, pentru a mpiedica divulgarea de informaii confideniale, sau pentru a garanta autoritatea i imparialitatea puterii judectoreti . "

Domeniul de aplicare A. de caz i de existena unei ingerine 19. Curtea noteaz de la bun nceput c ordin emis mpotriva compania reclamant n aciunea principal a fost n trei ramuri (a se vedea 13 i 14 de mai sus), n timp ce plngerea sa n faa tribunalului n cauz doar al treilea aspect, i anume pentru c reclamanta Compania trebuie s se abin de la compararea preurilor de vnzare ale Kronenzeitung Neue i Salzburger Nachrichten fr a dezvlui diferenele n stilurile lor de raportare n ceea ce privete acoperirea a politicii interne sau externe,, cultura economie, tiin, sntate, problemele de mediu i de drept. 20. n msura n care aceast parte a ncetare este n cauz, Curtea constat, iar acest lucru a fost un teren comun ntre pri, care a constituit o ingerin n dreptul companiei reclamante la libertatea de exprimare, garantat de articolul 10 1 al Conveniei (a se vedea, mutatis mutandis, Hertel c. Elveiei, hotrrea din 25 august 1998, Rapoarte 1998-VI, pp. 2324-25, 31;. i Schweizerische radio-und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG) V Elveia (dec.), nr 43542 / 98, 12 aprilie 2001).

Justificare B. interferene 21. Un articol interferen contravine 10 al Conveniei cu excepia cazului n care este "prevzut de lege", urmrete unul sau mai multe dintre scopurile legitime menionate la alineatul 2 al articolului 10 i este "necesar ntr-o societate democratic" pentru atingerea unui asemenea obiectiv sau obiective.

1. "Prevzut de lege"

22. Compania reclamant a contestat faptul c seciunile 1 i 2 din Legea concurenei neloiale ndeplinite ", prevzut de lege" cerin, argumentnd c nu a existat nici o practic stabilit instana austriac n acest domeniu i c hotrrile au fost n principal pe baza practicii judiciare germane. 23. n opinia Guvernului, prevederile de mai sus au fost aplicate n conformitate cu bine-stabilite de jurisprudena Curii Supreme austriac. 24. Curtea consider c ingerina a fost prevzut de lege, i anume la punctul 1 i 2 din Legea concurenei neloiale (a se vedea markt intern Verlag GmbH i Klaus Beermann c. Germaniei, hotrrea din 20 noiembrie 1989, seria A nr. 165, p. 18 -19, 30, cu referine ulterioare; i, mutatis mutandis, News Verlags GmbH & CoKG c. Austriei, nr 31457/96, CEDO 2000-I, 43)..

2. Scopul legitim

25. Compania reclamant a susinut c porunca nu au servit nici un scop legitim, ca divulgarea corect a preurilor de vnzare nu ar putea duna reputaiei de concurent. 26. Guvernul a susinut c ingerina a servit scopului legitim de protecie a reputaiei sau a drepturilor altora, n special pentru a se asigura c concurent societatea reclamant nu a fost expus la avertisements neltoare i faptul c consumatorii nu ar fi victime ale publicitii comparative neltoare. 27. Curtea consider, ca i Guvernul, c ingerina a urmrit un scop legitim, i anume "protecia reputaiei sau a drepturilor altora", n sensul articolului 10 2 din Convenie.

3. "Necesar ntr-o societate democratic"

28. n ceea ce privete necesitatea de interferen, compania a pus la ndoial reclamantei cu privire la existena unei "nevoi sociale presante", pentru a justifica intervenia. Avnd n vedere c instanele judectoreti naionale au bazat raionamentul lor, pe ipoteza c diferenele de calitate a fost materie de cunotine comune, ordin de contestat a fost necesar pentru protecia consumatorilor. n plus, instanele naionale nu au reuit s pstreze echilibrul ntre interesele prilor. Compania continuare, reclamanta a susinut c ordinul de restrictie de la aceasta comparnd preurile de vnzare ale celor dou ziare concurente, fr referire la diferenele n stilurile de raportare a rezultat ntr-o interdicie absolut de publicitate. n scopul de a evita o nclcare a porunca, compania reclamant ar trebui s

obin o analiz detaliat a diferenelor existente ntre cele dou ziare, care ar trebui s fie publicate n acelai timp ca slogan publicitar. n caz contrar, compania reclamant ar risca s plteasc amenzi de pn la 100.000 de euro pentru fiecare nclcare de ncetare, sau chiar pedeapsa cu nchisoarea a directorilor de gestionare. 29. Guvernul a susinut c, avnd n vedere marja larg de apreciere acordat statelor contractante n materie pur comerciale, intervenia nu ar putea fi considerat disproporionat. n plus, intervenia a fost un personaj minor ca nici o pedeapsa a fost pronunat i nu amenzii aplicate. 30. Curtea reitereaz c n conformitate cu jurisprudena sa, statele pri la Convenie au o anumit marj de apreciere n evaluarea necesitii unei ingerine, dar aceast marj este supus supravegherii europene n ceea ce privete att normele relevante i deciziilor de aplicare a acestora (a se vedea markt intern Verlag GmbH i Klaus Beermann, citat mai sus, p. 20, 33).. O astfel de marj de apreciere este deosebit de important n zona de complex i de fluctuant de concuren neloial. Acelai lucru se aplic n publicitate. Sarcina Curii este, prin urmare, limiteaz s verifice dac msurile luate la nivel naional sunt justificate, n principiu, i proporionale (a se vedea Casado Coca mpotriva Spaniei, Hotrrea din 24 februarie 1994, seria A nr 285-A, p. 28, 50..; i Jacubowski c. Germaniei, hotrrea din 26 mai 1994, nr 15088/89,. 26). 31. Pentru public, publicitatea este un mijloc de a descoperi caracteristicile de bunuri i servicii care le sunt oferite. Cu toate acestea, ea poate fi uneori limitat, n special pentru a preveni concurena neloial i publicitatea mincinoas sau neltoare. n unele contexte, publicarea de anunuri, chiar obiective, veridice ar putea fi restricionat n scopul de a asigura respectarea drepturilor altora sau din cauza la circumstanele speciale ale activitilor de afaceri i de anumite profesii. Orice astfel de restricii trebuie, totui, s fie atent examinate de ctre Curte, care trebuie s cntreasc cerinele de la aceste caracteristici speciale mpotriva publicitii n cauz; n acest scop, Curtea trebuie s se uite la pedeapsa contestat, n funcie de caz, ca un ntreg (a se vedea Casado Coca, citat mai sus, 51). 32. Revenind la circumstanele speei, Curtea consider c instanele naionale pe baza deciziei lor n primul rnd pe ipoteza c cele dou ziare nu au fost de calitate comparabil i c o comparaie a preurilor acestora ar fi, prin urmare, induce n eroare. Pe de alt parte, instanele de judecat, de asemenea, a declarat c cele dou ziare au fost concureni n aceeai pia i pentru acelai cerc de cititori. Curtea constat aceste dou situaii destul de inconsistente. 33. Privind mai departe, la impactul de ordin contestate la compania reclamant, Curtea observ c nici o sanciune a fost aplicat. Cu toate acestea, msura n cauz are destul de departe-consecine ar fi publicitatea n ceea ce privete viitorul implic compararea preurilor: compania solicitantul va trebui, de asemenea, s furnizeze informaii cu privire la modul n care stilul de raportare difer n materie de politic extern sau intern,, cultura economiei, tiinei, sntii , problemele de mediu i de drept. Curtea consider c porunca de a fi mult prea larg, afecta esena de comparaie a preurilor. n plus, punerea n aplicare practic a acesteia - dei nu imposibil, n general - pare a fi extrem de dificil pentru compania reclamant. n plus, compania reclamant risc impunerea de amenzi pentru nonconformitate cu acest ordin.

34. Curtea noteaz c instanele naionale au acordat prioritate de protecie a reputaiei de alt concurent de i drepturile consumatorilor mpotriva publicitii neltoare, n spe. Cu toate acestea, atunci cnd echilibrarea de conflict de interese implicate i innd seama de impactul de ordin cu privire la posibilitile companiei reclamante, n viitor, pentru publicitate care implic compararea preurilor, Curtea consider c instanele austriece au depit marja lor de apreciere, n spe, i c msura n cauz este disproporionat i, prin urmare, nu "necesar ntr-o societate democratic" n sensul articolului 10 2 din Convenie. 35. n consecin, a existat o nclcare a articolului 10 din Convenie.

II. APLICAREA ARTICOLULUI 41 DIN CONVENIE 36. Articolul 41 din Convenie prevede:

"Dac Curtea constat c a existat o nclcare a Conveniei sau a protocoalelor sale i dac dreptul intern al inaltei parti contractante nu permite dect repararea parial s fie fcute, Curtea trebuie, dac este cazul, o satisfacie partea vtmat. "

A. Prejudiciul 37. Compania reclamant a solicitat un total de 1,045,653.17 EUR pentru prejudiciul material cauzat de ncetare. Aceast sum a constat de 500.000 de euro fiecare pentru pierderea de trecut i n viitor a veniturilor ca urmare a pierderii de abonai noi, EUR 13,682.94 n ceea ce privete rambursarea costurilor celeilalte pri efectuate n cadrul procedurii interne i 31,970.23 EUR pentru costurile de publicare ncetare. Compania reclamant a susinut c, chiar dac unele facturi au fost trimise la editor pentru plat, compania reclamant a suportat cheltuielile de fapt. 38. Guvernul a susinut c cererile de pierderi din trecut i n viitor a veniturilor au fost speculative ca nu exista nicio legtur de cauzalitate ntre ncetare n cauz i pretinsa pierdere de venituri. n timp ce Guvernul a acceptat, n principiu, cererea a costurilor pltite de cealalt parte, au susinut n ceea ce privete cererea pentru costurile de publicare, care doar 680.22 EUR a fost dovedit a fi fost efectiv suportate de ctre compania reclamant. 39. Curtea consider c nu exist nicio legtur de cauzalitate ntre nclcarea constatat i cererile de pretinsa pierdere de venituri. Astfel, nu de atribuire se poate face n aceast privin. 40. Avnd n vedere legtura direct ntre Pentru instanele "la plata cheltuielilor de judecat ale celeilalte pri i de a publica porunca pe de o parte, i nclcarea articolului 10 a constatat de ctre Curte pe de alt parte, compania reclamant ar fi, n principiu, s fie dreptul de a despgubire n conformitate cu acest cap. Cu toate acestea, Curtea noteaz n primul rnd, c doar una din cele trei

ramuri ale porunca este n cauz (a se vedea 19 de mai sus), n timp ce sumele solicitate de ctre compania reclamant se refer la procedurile interne n ansamblul lor (a se vedea Unabhngige Iniiativa Informationsvielfalt v. Austria , nr 28525/95,. 54, 26 februarie 2002). n al doilea rnd, Curtea observ c compania reclamant, care a fost gsit n comun i solidar, mpreun cu editorul, nu a fcut dovada c este de fapt pltit sumele solicitate. Astfel, Curtea acord reclamantului EUR 680.22 companiei.

B. Costuri i cheltuieli 41. Reclamantul a solicitat EUR 22,059.72 pentru rambursarea de costuri i cheltuieli suportate n procedurile interne i 15,774.78 EUR (pe baza unui tarif orar de 330 euro), n ceea ce privete costurile i cheltuielile suportate n procedurile Conveniei. 42. n opinia Guvernului, costurile meniune referitoare la procedurile interne era excesiv n raport cu costurile rambursate de cealalt parte. Ei au susinut n continuare c nu a existat nici o dovad c compania reclamant a suportat efectiv, aceste costuri. n ceea ce privete costurile pentru susin aciunea Conveniei, Guvernul a susinut c suma era excesiv i c, evaluarea cererii pe baza de onorariile avocailor Act (Rechtsanwaltstarifgesetz), doar n EUR 3,346.15 ar putea fi, eventual, a susinut. 43. Curtea va lua n considerare afirmaiile de mai sus, n lumina criteriilor stabilite n jurisprudena sa, i anume dac costurile i cheltuielile au fost suportate efectiv i necesar, n scopul de a preveni sau de a obine despgubiri pentru problema sa constatat c reprezint o nclcare a Conveniei i au fost rezonabile ca cuantum (a se vedea, de exemplu, Bladet Tromso i Stensaas mpotriva Norvegiei *GC+, nr 21980/93,. 80, CEDO 1999-III). 44. Dei compania reclamant este, n principiu, dreptul la compensaie pentru costuri i cheltuieli n cadrul procedurii interne, Curtea observ c cererea se refer la procedurile interne ntregi n timp ce n cadrul procedurii Conveniei doar o parte din porunca este n cauz (a se vedea 19 i 40 de mai sus). Curtea este de acord cu Guvernul c compania reclamant nu a prezentat dovada c este de fapt pltit sumele solicitate. Astfel, nu de atribuire se poate face cu acest titlu. 45. n ceea ce privete costurile i cheltuielile suportate n cadrul procedurii Conveniei, Curtea, avnd n vedere sumele acordate n cazuri similare (a se vedea Unabhngige Iniiativa Informationsvielfalt, citat mai sus, 55), premii, pe o baz echitabil 6.000 euro.

C. Dobnzi de pltit pn la procedura n faa instanelor naionale i instituiile Conveniei 46. Compania reclamant a susinut c de dobnd la ratele variind ntre 5% i 10,75% pe an ar trebui s fie adugate la afirmaiile de mai sus, ncepnd cu 1 mai 1997. 47. Curtea constat c unele pierderi de material trebuie s fi fost prilejuit de motive de perioada n care scurs ntre momentul n care costurile de mai sus au fost suportate i de atribuire a Curii (a se vedea Dichand v. Austria, nr. 29271/95, 62, 26

februarie 2002 ). Decide cu privire la o baz echitabil, Curtea acord companiei reclamante 200 de euro cu acest titlu.

D. Penaliti 48. Curtea consider oportun ca penalitatea de ntrziere s fie bazat pe rata marginal de mprumut a Bncii Centrale Europene, la care se adaug trei puncte procentuale.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE, CURTEA, N UNANIMITATE

. 1 Susine c a existat o nclcare a articolului 10 din Convenie;

2. Susine

(A) c statul prt trebuie s plteasc reclamantului, n termen de trei luni de la data la care hotrrea devine definitiv n conformitate cu articolul 44 2 din Convenie, urmtoarele sume:

(I) 680.22 EUR (ase sute optzeci de euro i douzeci i dou de ceni), cu titlu de prejudiciu material; (Ii) EUR 6,000 (ase mii euro) cu titlu de costuri i cheltuieli; (Iii) EUR 200 (dou sute euro), n ceea ce privete de interes suplimentare; (Iv) orice tax care poate fi perceput la sumele de mai sus;

(B) c de la expirarea termenului de mai sus-menionate de trei luni, pn la dobnd simpl va fi pltit cu privire la sumele de mai sus, la o rat egal cu rata marginal de mprumut a Bncii Centrale Europene pe parcursul perioadei de ntrziere, plus trei puncte procentuale;

3. Respinge restul preteniilor reclamantului de satisfacie echitabil.

ntocmit n limba englez, i notificat n scris la 11 decembrie 2003, n conformitate cu articolul 77 2 i 3 din Regulamentul Curii.

Sren NIELSEN Christos Rozakis Grefier adjunct de preedinte

Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v. Austria, Application No. 39069/97, Judgement of 11 December 2003 FIRST SECTION JUDGMENT STRASBOURG This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr CL ROZAKIS, President , Mr E. LEVITS, Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA, Mr A. KOVLER, Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, Mrs E. STEINER, Mr K. HAJIYEV, judges , And Mr S. NIELSEN, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2003 and 20 November 2003, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 39069/97) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) by Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG, the owner of the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung with its registered office in

Vienna (the applicant company), on 18 September 1997. 2. The applicant company was represented by Mr R. Fiebinger, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The Austrian Government (the Government) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant company alleged that the injunction issued against it under the Unfair Competition Act was in breach of its right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, in so far as it prohibited the applicant company from comparing the sales prices of the Neue Kronenzeitung and Salzburger Nachrichtenwithout disclosing the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. 4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 1 of the Rules of Court). 6. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 1). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 1. 7. By a decision of 20 March 2003 the Court declared the application admissible. 8. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 1).The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9. The applicant company, Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG, a limited liability company with its head office in Vienna, is the owner of the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung. Its publisher is Mediaprint Zeitungsund Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG (hereafter referred to as the publisher). The applicant company is represented before the Court by Mr R. Fiebinger, a lawyer practising in Vienna. 10. On 9 and 11 December 1994 the local Salzburg edition of the Neue Kronenzeitungpublished an advertisement for subscriptions to the newspaper in which it compared its monthly subscription rates with those of another regional newspaper, the Salzburger Nachrichten . According to the advertisement, the Neue Kronenzeitung was 'the best' local newspaper. 11. On 13 December 1994 the Salzburger Nachrichten applied to the Salzburg Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) for a preliminary injunction ( einstweilige Verfgung ) under Sections 1 and 2 of the Unfair Competition Act ( Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb ) against the applicant company and the publisher. It requested that the applicant company and the publisher be ordered to refrain from publishing the advertisement. 12. On 29 December 1994 the Salzburg Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction against the applicant company and the publisher to preserve the status quo during the proceedings. On appeal by the applicant company and the publisher, the Linz Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht ) quashed the Regional Court's decision. The court stated,inter alia , that the two newspapers were competitors in the

same market and for the same readership. On 23 May 1995 the Supreme Court ( Oberster Gerichtshof ), on appeal by the Salzburger Nachrichten , issued a preliminary injunction. The court found that the advertisement was misleading. It considered that the Salzburger Nachrichtenwas a 'quality newspaper' and the Neue Kronenzeitung was not and that these differences were not necessarily known to consumers. Furthermore, in the particular circumstances of the case, calling the Neue Kronenzeitung 'the best' local newspaper amounted to disparagement of the Salzburger Nachrichten . 13. In the main proceedings which followed, the Salzburg Regional Court ordered the applicant company and the publisher to refrain from publishing this advertisement as long as it did not provide at the same time information which made it possible to avoid any generally pejorative value statement or any other risk of misleading consumers.Secondly, they were ordered not to refer to the sales price of the Salzburger Nachrichtenas expensive. Thirdly, they were ordered to refrain from comparing the sales prices of the two newspapers without disclosing at the same time the differences in their respective reporting styles, in particular as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law, and without referring also to the Neue Kronenzeitung as an entertainment-orientated communications medium and the Salzburger Nachrichten as a medium mainly geared to information.Lastly, it ordered them to publish the decision. 14. On 21 March 1997 the Linz Court of Appeal, allowing in part an appeal by the applicant company and the publisher, confined the third branch of the injunction to the order that the applicant company and the publisher must refrain from comparing the sales prices of the two newspapers without disclosing the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. It confirmed the lower court's decision as to the remaining branches of the order. The court considered that it was a matter of common knowledge that both newspapers were competing in the same market. As to the differences in quality between the newspapers and the argument that readers were not familiar with these differences, the Linz Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court's decision of 23 May 1995. 15. On 28 April 1997 the applicant company and the publisher lodged an extraordinary appeal against this decision, relying on Article 10 of the Convention. 16. On 13 May 1997 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible their extraordinary appeal on points of law. The decision was served on the parties on 16 June 1997. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 17. The relevant sections of the Unfair Competition Act read as follows: Section 1 "Any person who in the course of business commits, for purposes of competition, acts contrary to honest practices, may be ordered to desist from further engaging in those acts and held liable for damages. Section 2 Any person who in the course of business, for purposes of competition, makes declarations that could be misleading about commercial conditions, especially on the quality, origin, method of production or

calculation of the prices of single goods or services or the whole stock, on price-lists, about the manner and sources of supply, about the possession of awards, about the occasion or purpose of the sale or about the quantity of the stock, may be ordered to desist from further making those declarations and, if he knew or must have known that they were likely to mislead, held liable for damages. However, comparing prices in advertisements is authorised, if it is not contrary to this section or section 1. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 18. The applicant company complained that its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention had been infringed by the Austrian courts' injunction in so far as it prohibited the comparison of sales prices of the Neue Kronenzeitung and theSalzburger Nachrichten without disclosing the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. Article 10 provides as follows: 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. A. Scope of the case and existence of an interference 19. The Court notes at the outset that the injunction issued against the applicant company in the main proceedings was in three branches (see 13 and 14 above), while its complaint before the Court merely concerned the third branch, namely the order that the applicant company must refrain from comparing the sales prices of the Neue Kronenzeitung and the Salzburger Nachrichten without disclosing the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. 20. In so far as this part of the injunction is concerned, the Court finds, and this was common ground between the parties, that it constituted an interference with the applicant company's right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hertel v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 August 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2324-25, 31; and Schweizerische Radiound Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG) v Switzerland (dec.), no. 43542/98, 12 April 2001). B. Justification of the interference 21. An interference contravenes Article 10 of the Convention unless it is prescribed by law, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 and is necessary in a democratic society for achieving such an aim or aims.

1. Prescribed by law 22. The applicant company disputed that Sections 1 and 2 of the Unfair Competition Act fulfilled the prescribed by law requirement, arguing that there was no established Austrian court practice in this area and that the judgments were mainly based on German court practice. 23. In the Government's view, the above provisions were applied in conformity with the well-established case-law of the Austrian Supreme Court. 24. The Court considers that the interference was prescribed by law, namely by Section 1 and 2 of the Unfair Competition Act (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, pp. 18-19, 30, with further references; and, mutatis mutandis, News Verlags GmbH & CoKG v. Austria , no. 31457/96, ECHR 2000-I, 43). 2. Legitimate aim 25. The applicant company argued that the injunction did not serve any legitimate aim, as the correct disclosure of sales prices could not harm the reputation of the competitor. 26. The Government submitted that the interference served the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others, in particular to ensure that the applicant company's competitor was not exposed to misleading avertisements and that consumers would not be victims of misleading comparative advertising. 27. The Court considers, like the Government, that the interference served a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 2 of the Convention. 3. Necessary in a democratic society 28. As regards the necessity of the interference, the applicant company cast doubts on the existence of a pressing social need to justify the interference. Since the domestic courts had based their reasoning on the assumption that the differences in quality were matters of common knowledge, the impugned injunction had been unnecessary for the protection of consumers. Moreover, the domestic courts had failed to balance the interests of the parties. The applicant company further contended that the order restraining it from comparing the sales prices of the two competing newspapers without referring to their differences in reporting styles had resulted in an absolute advertising ban. In order to avoid a breach of the injunction, the applicant company would have to obtain a detailed analysis of existing differences between the two newspapers, which would have to be published at the same time as the advertising slogan. Failing this, the applicant company would risk having to pay fines up to EUR 100,000 for each and every violation of the injunction, or even imprisonment of its managing directors. 29. The Government argued that in view of the wide margin of appreciation accorded to Contracting States in purely commercial matters, the interference could not be considered disproportionate. Moreover, the interference was of a minor character as no penalty had been pronounced and no fine imposed. 30. The Court reiterates that under its case-law the States parties to the Convention have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of an interference, but this margin is subject to

European supervision as regards both the relevant rules and the decisions applying them (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann, cited above, p. 20, 33). Such a margin of appreciation is particularly essential in the complex and fluctuating area of unfair competition. The same applies to advertising. The Court's task is therefore confined to ascertaining whether the measures taken at national level are justifiable in principle and proportionate (see Casado Coca v. Spain, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 28, 50; and Jacubowski v. Germany,judgment of 26 May 1994, no. 15088/89, 26). 31. For the public, advertising is a means of discovering the characteristics of services and goods offered to them. Nevertheless, it may sometimes be restricted, especially to prevent unfair competition and untruthful or misleading advertising. In some contexts, the publication of even objective, truthful advertisements might be restricted in order to ensure respect for the rights of others or owing to the special circumstances of particular business activities and professions. Any such restrictions must, however, be closely scrutinised by the Court, which must weigh the requirements of those particular features against the advertising in question; to this end, the Court must look at the impugned penalty in the light of the case as a whole (see Casado Coca, cited above, 51). 32. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the domestic courts based their decision first and foremost on the assumption that the two newspapers were not of comparable quality and that a comparison of their prices would therefore be misleading. On the other hand, the courts also stated that the two newspapers were competitors in the same market and for the same circle of readers.The Court finds these two statements rather inconsistent. 33. In looking further at the impact of the impugned injunction on the applicant company, the Court observes that no penalty was imposed. However, the measure at issue has quite far-reaching consequences as regards future advertising involving price comparison: the applicant company will also need to provide information on how its reporting style differs on matters of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. The Court considers the injunction to be far too broad, impairing the very essence of price comparison. Moreover, its practical implementation - though not impossible in general - appears to be highly difficult for the applicant company. Furthermore, the applicant company risks the imposition of fines for non-compliance with this order. 34. The Court notes that the domestic courts have given priority to the protection of the reputation of the other competitor and the rights of the consumers against misleading advertising in the instant case. However, when balancing the conflicting interests involved and taking account of the impact of the injunction on the applicant company's possibilities in future for advertising involving price comparison, the Court considers that the Austrian courts have overstepped their margin of appreciation in the present case, and that the measure at issue is disproportionate, and therefore not necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10 2 of the Convention. 35. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 36. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party. A. Damage 37. The applicant company sought a total of EUR 1,045,653.17 for pecuniary damage caused by the injunction. This amount consisted of EUR 500,000 each for past and future loss of earnings owing to the loss of new subscribers, EUR 13,682.94 in respect of reimbursement of the other party's costs incurred in the domestic proceedings and EUR 31,970.23 for costs of publishing the injunction. The applicant company submitted that even though certain invoices had been sent to the publisher for payment, the applicant company had actually borne the expenditure. 38. The Government maintained that the claims for past and future loss of earnings were speculative as there was no causal link between the injunction at issue and the alleged loss of earnings. While the Government accepted in principle the claim of the costs paid to the other party, they argued in respect of the claim for publication costs that only EUR 680.22 had been shown to have actually been incurred by the applicant company. 39.The Court considers that there is no causal link between the violation found and the claims for alleged loss of earnings. Thus, no award can be made in this regard. 40. Having regard to the direct link between the courts' order to pay the other party's costs and to publish the injunction on the one hand, and the violation of Article 10 found by the Court on the other, the applicant company would in principle be entitled to compensation under this head. However, the Court notes firstly that only one of the three branches of the injunction is at issue (see 19 above), while the sums claimed by the applicant company relate to the domestic proceedings in their entirety (seeUnabhngige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria , no. 28525/95, 54, 26 February 2002). Secondly, the Court observes that the applicant company, who had been found jointly and severally liable together with the publisher, has not furnished proof that it actually paid the amounts claimed. Thus, the Court awards the applicant company EUR 680.22. B. Costs and expenses 41. The applicant sought EUR 22,059.72 for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and EUR 15,774.78 (based on an hourly fee of EUR 330) in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the Convention proceedings. 42. In the Government's view, the costs claim relating to the domestic proceedings was excessive compared with the costs reimbursed to the other party. They argued further that there was no proof that the applicant company had actually borne these costs. In respect of the costs claim for the Convention proceedings, the Government submitted that the amount was excessive and that, assessing the claim on the basis of the Lawyers' Fees Act ( Rechtsanwaltstarifgesetz), only EUR 3,346.15 could possibly be claimed. 43. The Court will consider the above claims in the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law, namely whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for instance, Bladet Troms and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, 80, ECHR 1999-III).

44. Although the applicant company is in principle entitled to compensation for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings, the Court observes that the claim relates to the entire domestic proceedings while in the Convention proceedings only one part of the injunction is at issue (see 19 and 40 above). The Court agrees with the Government that the applicant company has not submitted proof that it actually paid the amounts claimed. Thus, no award can be made under this head. 45. In respect of the costs and expenses incurred in the Convention proceedings, the Court, having regard to the sums awarded in similar cases (see Unabhngige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, cited above, 55), awards on an equitable basis EUR 6,000. C. Interest payable pending the proceedings before the national courts and the Convention institutions 46. The applicant company claimed that interest at rates varying between 5% and 10.75% per annum should be added to the above claims starting from 1 May 1997. 47.The Court finds that some pecuniary loss must have been occasioned by reason of the period that elapsed between the time when the above costs were incurred and the Court's award (see Dichand v. Austria , no. 29271/95, 62, 26 February 2002). Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant company EUR 200 under this head. D. Default interest 48. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention; 2. Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i) EUR 680.22 (six hundred and eighty euros and twenty-two cents) in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses; (iii) EUR 200 (two hundred euros) in respect of additional interest; (iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; 3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Sren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS Deputy Registrar President