오늘날 발달된 민주주의를 지향하는 국가들에서는 명예훼손죄가 이미 철폐됐거나 그 사용빈도가 희박한 상태이다. 이러한 세계적인 흐름과 반대로 우리나라에서는 명예훼손죄의 사용빈도가 증가하고 있다. 유럽인권재판소는 유럽의 준 헌법재판소로서 기능하며 유럽인권협약 제10조에 따라 명예훼손에 관한 사건을 처리하고 있다. 회원국의 표현의 자유에 관한 많은 사건들이 유럽인권재판소에서 다루어지고 있으며 체약국의 재량의 여지이론에도 불구하고 표현의 자유가 넓게 보장되는 판례가 다수를 이루고 있다.
본 논문에서는많은 표현의자유의분야 중언론의 표현의자유에 대하여논하고자한다.
먼저 유럽인권협약에서 표현의 자유와 관련된 조항인 유럽인권협약 제10조의 의의를 살펴본다. 그리고 유럽인권협약 제10조에서 언론의 명예훼손 문제가 어떻게 다루어지고 있는지를 유럽인권재판소 판례를 중심으로 살펴보고, 우리나라 언론 표현의 자유와 명예훼손에 관한 법리를 비교해봄으로서 그 시사하는 바를 살펴본다.
결론적으로, 유럽인권재판소는 진실한사실의 적시를비범죄화 하고있고, 재판중의 사건들에 대하여도 언론이 활발한 토론을 할 수 있다고 판시하며, 기업을 공적존재로 인정하여 기업이명예훼손에관대하여야함을인정하고있고, 취재원비익권도인정하고있다. 반대로 우리 법원은 진실한 사실의 적시를 범죄화하고 있고, 재판중의 사건들에 대하여 언론이 활발한토론을 할수없으며, 기업을공적존재로인정하지 않고있고, 취재원비익권도 인정하지 않고 있다. 따라서 현재시점에서 유럽인권재판소가 언론의 표현의 자유를 우리나라보다 더 폭넓게 인정하고 있다는 점에서 본 연구의 그 시사점을 찾을 수 있다.

[닫기]

In these days, the defamation related criminal conviction has been already abolished, or a rarity in usage, among the nations pursuing the developed democracy. In contrast, the defamation-related criminal conviction has been increased in Korea. While the European Court of Human Rights functions as a quasi-Constitutional court in European
Convention, the Court has been dealing with defamation-related claims according to the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has been dealing with the freedom of speech and expression issues asserted by the members of the European Convention. Despite of the doctrine of the
margin of appreciation, the European Court of Human Rights has turned many cases in favor of the freedom of speech and expression when being confronted with the rights protecting reputation.
In this article, I will discuss about the freedom of the media, including newspaper, in the field of the freedom of speech and expression. First, I will inquire about the meaning of the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is pertaining to the freedom of speech and expression. Second, I will study about the
European Court of Human Rights case decisions to understand how media-related defamation issues are treated by the Court following the Article 10 of the European Convention. Finally, I will compare Korean court decisions with the European Court of Human Rights decisions in order to learn precious lessons.
In conclusion, the European Court of Human Rights has declared that if true facts
comprise defamatory claims, the defamation accusation, or claim, is not guilty in criminal action and not responsible in civil action. Also, the Court has declared that the media can actively discuss about the cases pending in court. The Court has declared that because business entities have the characteristics of public sector, companies must definitely tolerate the defamatory claims against the companies themselves. Also, the Court has declared that the media do not have to disclose the news sources when prosecutors and judges request. In contrast, Korean courts has found guilty, or responsible, about the defamatory assertions even though true facts comprise the defamatory claims. Also, the courts has declared that media are not able to actively discuss about the cases pending in court. The Court has declared that because business entities do not have the characteristics of public sector, companies are allowed freely to file a lawsuit against the defamatory claims which is against the companies themselves. Also, the Court has declared that the media must disclose the news sources when prosecutors and judges request. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights protects the freedom of speech and expression of the media more fully in satisfaction than Korean courts do so at present time.

[닫기]