MORICE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 37 Article 10 and, moreover, that they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts ...” 125. Moreover, as regards the level of protection, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-IV; and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 90, 7 February 2012). Accordingly, a high level of protection of freedom of expression, with the authorities thus having a particularly narrow margin of appreciation, will normally be accorded where the remarks concern a matter of public interest, as is the case, in particular, for remarks on the functioning of the judiciary, even in the context of proceedings that are still pending in respect of the other defendants (see Roland Dumas v. France, no. 34875/07, § 43, 15 July 2010, and Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v. Portugal, no. 1529/08, § 47, 29 March 2011). A degree of hostility (see E.K. v. Turkey, no. 28496/95, §§ 79-80, 7 February 2002) and the potential seriousness of certain remarks (see Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 57, ECHR 2001-III) do not obviate the right to a high level of protection, given the existence of a matter of public interest (see Paturel v. France, no. 54968/00, § 42, 22 December 2005). 126. Furthermore, in its judgments in Lingens v. Austria (8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103) and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) (23 May 1991, § 63, Series A no. 204), the Court drew a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 42, Reports 1997-I). However, where a statement amounts to a value judgment, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient “factual basis” for the impugned statement: if there is not, that value judgment may prove excessive (see De Haes and Gijsels, cited above, § 47; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-IV; Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 36, 11 April 2006; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July, cited above, § 55). In order to distinguish between a factual allegation and a value judgment it is necessary to take account of the circumstances of the case and the general tone of the remarks (see Brasilier, cited above, § 37), bearing in mind that assertions about matters of public interest may, on that basis, constitute value judgments rather than statements of fact (see Paturel, cited above, § 37). 127. Lastly, the nature and severity of the sanctions imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the