MORICE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 33 the subject of the harsh criticism had already been removed from the case. In their view, neither was it a matter of zealous defence by a lawyer of his client, because there were judicial remedies that he could have used to submit his complaint. The Government referred to the Court’s inadmissibility decision in Floquet and Esménard v. France ((dec.), nos. 29064/08 and 29979/08, 10 January 2012), which concerned comments made by journalists in the Borrel case, particularly as, in the present case, it was not a journalist but a lawyer who was the author of the impugned statements, and moreover in a case that was pending in the domestic courts. 112. As to the sanction imposed on the applicant, the Government were of the view that it could not be regarded as excessive or such as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression. They thus submitted that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. C. Observations of the third-party interveners before the Grand Chamber 1. Observations of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) 113. The CCBE observed that the Court’s judgment in the present case would most certainly have a considerable impact on the conditions of interpretation and application of the standards of conduct imposed on European lawyers and more particularly with regard to their freedom of speech and expression in the context of the exercise of defence rights. Lawyers held a key position in the administration of justice and it was necessary to protect their specific status. Being the cornerstone of a democratic society, freedom of expression had a particular characteristic as regards lawyers, who had to be able to carry on their profession without hindrance; if the use of their speech were to be censored or restricted, the real and effective defence of the citizen would not be guaranteed. 114. The CCBE referred to the Court’s case-law to the effect that a restriction of freedom of expression would entail a violation of Article 10 unless it fell within the exceptions mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Article. The examination criteria related to the existence of an interference, its legal foreseeability, whether it was necessary in a democratic society to meet a “pressing social need” and the specific circumstances of the case. In the CCBE’s view, these criteria were all the more valid where a lawyer defending Convention rights was concerned. 115. The limits to freedom of expression had firstly to be reasonably foreseeable, with a more restrictive and precise definition of the criteria relating to the restrictions that could be placed on lawyers’ freedom of expression. The CCBE noted discrepancies in the assessment by the various Sections of the Court: in a related case (see July and SARL Libération, cited