Lingens v Austria
The limits of acceptable criticism are wider for a politician than for a private individual, and value judgments, unlike facts, are not susceptible of proof.
Facts
Mr Lingens, a journalist, published articles criticising the Austrian Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, for his support for a politician who had served in an SS brigade during the Second World War, and for his attacks on Simon Wiesenthal. He described the Chancellor's conduct as the basest opportunism, immoral and undignified. He was convicted of criminal defamation, because he could not prove the truth of his statements.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 10. The court said that freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders, and that the limits of acceptable criticism are wider as regards a politician acting in his public capacity than as regards a private individual. A careful distinction must be made between facts and value judgments: the existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. Requiring Mr Lingens to prove the truth of his opinions infringed freedom of opinion itself.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
