This case concerns the publication of an article on a magazine (Lyon Mag’) criticizing the teaching methods used by L., lecturer at Lyons III University, and the subsequent publication of a written reply by L accompanied by comments in which the term “maniac” appeared twice. The applicants were prosecuted for public defamation of a civil servant and were ordered to pay a fine.

The Court took the view that the term “maniac” could not by itself be considered defamatory in the circumstances and that the comments in question had not exceeded the degree of provocation generally allowed to the press, had not been serious and had concerned a subject of topical public interest. Secondly, the protection of L’s office as a civil servant could not take priority over the right of the public to receive information. Finally the applicant’s conviction amounted to disproportionate interference with article 10 (right to freedom of expression). Thus there was a violation of article 10.