Fundamento destacado: 55. No cabe duda de que, en una sociedad democrática, los justiciables tienen derecho a comentar y criticar la administración de justicia y los funcionarios que intervienen en ella. Sin embargo, tales críticas no deben sobrepasar ciertos límites. El Tribunal de Justicia ha declarado que, en principio, las autoridades nacionales están en mejores condiciones para garantizar, dentro del margen de apreciación que les está reservado, un justo equilibrio entre los diferentes intereses en juego en casos similares.
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
LEŠNÍK v. SLOVAKIA JUDGMENT
In the case of Lešník v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas BRATZA, President,
Mr M. PELLONPÄÄ,
Mrs V. STRÁŽNICKÁ,
Mr M. FISCHBACH,
Mr R. MARUSTE,
Mr S. PAVLOVSCHI,
Mr L. GARLICKI, judges,
and Mr M. O’BOYLE, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2002 and 4 February 2003,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 35640/97) against the Slovak Republic 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 a Slovakian national, Mr Alexej Lešník (“the applicant”), on 10 March 1997.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr J. Hrubala, a lawyer practising in Banská Bystrica. The Slovakian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr P. Vršanský.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his right to freedom of expression had been violated as a result of his conviction for statements in respect of a public prosecutor.
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 Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
6. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section.
[Continúa…]
