European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)89¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Société Plon against France

(Application No. 58148/00 and judgment of 18 May 2004, final on 18 August 2004)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the permanent prohibition of the distribution of a book which did not meet a “pressing social need” and was therefore not commensurate with the aims pursued (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of the case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)89

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of

Société Plon against France

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the banning of distribution, in January 1996, of the book “Le Grand Secret”, co-authored by a journalist and President Mitterrand’s personal physician. The book was published by the applicant company nine days after the President’s death. It disclosed that the President had been suffering from cancer, diagnosed as early as 1981 some months after he was first elected President of the French Republic.

After the President’s widow and children had applied for an injunction, the civil courts prohibited the distribution of the book, at first provisionally following the application, then permanently. After finding that both prohibitive measures had been in accordance with the law and pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of Article 10, the European Court noted that the injunction granted as a strictly temporary protective measure could be deemed necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights of the President and his heirs. It held, however, that the absolute permanent ban ordered by the trial and appeal courts no longer met a “pressing social need” and was therefore disproportionate to the aims pursued (violation of Article 10).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The European Court held that the pecuniary damage invoked by the applicant company (“loss of income” consequential to the permanent injunction prohibiting the distribution of the book) was “extremely speculative” and dismissed this claim (§61 of the judgment).

The question of the applicant company’s distributing the book therefore no longer arose. Indeed, at the time when the injunction prohibiting publication, termed disproportionate by the European Court, became final, the text of the book was already available on the Internet (see the Court’s judgment, §§17 and 61). Subsequently the book was released by another publisher.

Consequently, no further individual measure seems necessary.

II. General measures

The judgment was circulated to the competent courts so that they might take account of it in future; in that connection, it is recalled that the French courts apply the Convention directly.

Moreover, the judgment was also circulated to the Directorate for Criminal Affairs and Pardons of the Ministry of Justice and published on the Ministry intranet. Finally, commentaries on the judgment were published in several law journals.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.