European Court of Human Rights

2012

 

IPPT20120207, ECHR, Von Hannover v Germany

Characterisation of Prince Rainier’s illness as an event of contemporary society not unreasonable.

 

IPPT20120207, ECHR, Axel Springer v Germany

Balancing interest in publishing the information about arrest for cocaine possesion against TV actor's right to respect for his private life; under the circumstances no need to preserve anonymity TV actor; no bad faith publisher. Content, form and consequences of the impugned articles do constitute a ground for banning them.

 

2011

 

IPPT20110510, ECHR, Mosly v UK

No legally binding pre-notification requirement - respect for private life under article 8 ECHR: The limited scope under Article 10 for restric-tions on the freedom of the press to publish material which contributes to debate on matters of general public interest must be borne in mind. Thus, having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the sig-nificant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the absence of such a re-quirement in domestic law.

 

2010

 

IPPT20100914, ECHR, Sanoma v The Netherlands

Protection journalistic sources: chilling effect:  The present case concerns an order for the compulsory surrender of journalistic material which contained information capable of identifying journalistic sources. This suffices for the Court to find that this order constitutes, in itself, an interference with the applicant company's freedom to receive and impart information under Article 10 § 1. Deficient quality of the law: not “prescribed by law”.

 

2009

 

IPPT20090331, ECHR, Sanoma v The Netherlands

No Journalistic privilege: handover of journalistic materials proportionate given the nature and seriousness of the crimes: ramming wall with a shovel: the actions of the police and the public prosecutors were characterised by a regrettable lack of moderation. Even so the reasons advanced for the interference complained of were “relevant” and “sufficient” and “proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued”.

 

IPPT20090310, ECHR, Times Newspapers v The United Kingdom

Internet Publication Rule: Requirement to publish qualification to an article contained in an Internet archive does not constitute a disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression.

 

IPPT20090115, ECHR, Reklos and Davourlis v Greece

Violation of right to respect for private life by picture taken in hospital: The key issue in the present case is not the nature, harmless or otherwise, of the applicants' son's representation on the offending photographs, but the fact that the photographer kept them without the applicants' consent. The baby's image was thus retained in the hands of the photographer in an identifiable form with the possibility of subsequent use against the wishes of the person concerned and/or his parents.

 

2007

 

IPPT20071122, ECHR, Voskuil v The Netherlands

The right of journalists not to disclose their sources: The Court is struck by the lengths to which the Netherlands authorities were prepared to go to learn his or her identity. The Court finds that the facts to be considered tip the balance of competing interests in favour of the interest of democratic society in securing a free press. 

 

IPPT20070125, ECHR, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v Austria

Offend, shock or disturb: Freedom of expression is applicable to “information” or “ideas” that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Those who create, perform, distribute or exhibit works of art contribute to the exchange of ideas and opinions which is essential for a democratic society. Hence the obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression.Injunction disproportionate

 

IPPT20070111, ECHR, Anheuser Busch v Portugal

Trademark application is a possession: a set of proprietary rights that were recognized under Portuguese law, even though they could be revoked under certain conditions.

 

2006

 

IPPT20061130, ECHR, Veraart v The Netherlands

Freedom of speech: In these circumstances, and especially given the extremely serious accusations levelled against the K. family, there was nothing unreasonable in expecting Mr K at the very least to state his qualifications. 

 

2005

 

IPPT20050215, ECHR, Steel and Morris v UK

Denial of legal aid: inequality of arms. Large multinational  and defamation: It is true that large public companies inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts and, as in the case of the businessmen and women who manage them, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies. Breach of article 10 – lack of procedural fairness and equality:

 

2004

 

IPPT20040727, ECHR, Sidabras v Lithuania

No breach of Article 10 ECHR: Inability to find employment because of the KGB Act not a restriction on ability to express views, because searched positions do not involve the imparting of ideas and information

 

IPPT20040624, ECHR, Von Hannover v Germany
Publication of photos: In the present case there is no doubt that the publi-cation by various German magazines of photos of the applicant in her daily life either on her own or with other people falls within the scope of her pri-vate life: There is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with oth-ers, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life”. Balancing protection of private life and freedom of expression: the decisive factor in balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest.

 

2003

 

IPPT20031211, ECHR, Krone Verlag v Austria

Violation of Article 10 ECHR: Austrian courts overstepped their margin of appreciation. The injunction is too broad and impairs the essence of price comparison. Furthermore, the practical implementation of the injunction is highly difficult.

 

1998

 

IPPT19980825 Court of Justice, Hertel v Switzerland
Violation of article 10: injunction not necessary in a democratic society: It will be seen from the foregoing that Mr Hertel played no part in the choice of the illustration for issue no. 19 of the Journal Franz Weber, that those statements that were definitely attributable to him were on the whole qualified and that there is nothing to suggest that they  had any substantial impact on the interests of the members of the MHEA.

 

1996

 

IPPT19960327, ECHR, Goodwin v United Kingdom

Importance of source protection; chilling effect: Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding

 

1995

 

IPPT19951120, ECHR, BAT v The Netherlands

No violation of article 6 – access to civil courts of decision of Appeals Division of Patent Office

 

1988

 

IPPT19880524, ECHR, Müller and Others v Switzerland

Offend, shock or disturb: Freedom of expression is applicable to “information” or “ideas” that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Those who create, perform, distribute or exhibit works of art contribute to the exchange of ideas and opinions which is essential for a democratic society. Hence the obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on their freedom of expression.