Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 6.4.4 The right to freedom of expression In the case of Schöpfer, the European Court of Human Rights arrived at the conclusion that there had been no violation of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the Lawyers’ Supervisory Board in the Canton of Lucerne, Switzerland, imposed a fine of 500 Swiss francs on the applicant for breach of professional ethics after he had called a press conference at which he criticized the actions of a district prefect and two district clerks in a pending case in which he was involved. The Court confirmed its previous jurisprudence according to which “the special status of lawyers gives them a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts”, adding that “such a position explains the usual restrictions on the conduct of members of the Bar”.152 Considering that “the courts – the guarantors of justice, whose role is fundamental in a State based on the rule of law – must enjoy public confidence”, and, having regard, furthermore, to “the key role of lawyers in this field, it is legitimate to expect them to contribute to the proper administration of justice, and thus to maintain public confidence therein”.153 Quite significantly, it emphasized that “It also goes without saying that freedom of expression is secured to lawyers too, who are certainly entitled to comment in public on the administration of justice, but their criticism must not overstep certain bounds. In that connection, account must be taken of the need to strike the right balance between the various interests involved, which include the public’s right to receive information about questions arising from judicial decisions, the requirements of the proper administration of justice and the dignity of the legal profession... . Because of their direct, continuous contact with their members, the Bar authorities and a country’s courts are in a better position than an international court to determine how, at a given time, the right balance can be struck. That is why they have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of an interference in this area, but this margin is subject to European supervision as regards both the relevant rules and the decisions applying them”.154 The Court concluded in this case that, in imposing a fine of “modest amount”, the authorities had not gone beyond their margin of appreciation in punishing the lawyer. It noted that the lawyer had in this case “raised in public his complaints on the subject of criminal proceedings which were at that time pending before a criminal court”, and, “in addition to the general nature, the seriousness and the tone of the applicant’s assertions”, he had “first held a press conference, claiming that this was his last resort, and only afterwards lodged an appeal before the Lucerne Court of Appeal, which was partly successful”; lastly, he had also failed to apply to the prosecutor’s office, “whose ineffectiveness he did not attempt to establish except by means of mere assertions”.155 152 Eur. Court HR, Schöpfer case v. Switzerland, judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1052, para. 29. 153 Ibid. p. 1053. 154 Ibid., pp. 1053-1054, para. 33. 155 Ibid., p. 1054, para. 34. 156 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers