ევროპის სასამართლოს მნიშვნელოვანი გადაწყვეტილებები სიტყვის გამოხატვისა და მედიის თავისუფლებასთან დაკავშირებით
27-04-2015, 09:04  / ნანახია: 1909

Protection of Information

 

Handyside vs. The United Kingdom Protection of the information which may offend, shock or disturb.

 

Lingens vs. Austria  Distinction between facts and value-judgments.

 

Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publisher from repeating the expression “racist agitation” in connection to an Austrian political party was disproportionate; Statement was a contribution to a public debate and an expression of the value judgment.

 

Krone Verlag GmbH and CoKG vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publication of a photograph criticizing a politician from receiving illegal salaries was disproportionate.  Such info is a matter of public interest; media’s function is to publish information on public interest.

 

Media's Role

 

Observer and Guardian vs. The United Kingdom   The Sunday Times vs. The United Kingdom (no. 2).

 

Thorgeir Thorgeirson vs. Iceland  Goodwin vs. The United Kingdom  "Public watchdog".

 

Internet 

 

Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine Internet Regulation 

 

Editorial Independence

 

Manole and others vs. Moldova Editorial Independence is guaranteed by the ECHR. 

 

Politic and Media, Criticism of Public Figures  

 

Castells vs. Spain  Lingens vs. Austria Limits of permissible criticism - politicians. 

 

Verlagsgruppe News GmBH vs. Austria Criticism of prominent businesspeople.

 

Oberschlick vs. Austria Protection of a harsh polemical expression against politicians (Trottel), Conviction for Insult a politician was a violation.

 

Colombani and others vs. France Conviction of a journalist for criticizing the head of Morocco based on an official report violates the convention. The media article contributes to a public debate.  

 

Von Hannover vs. Germany  Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care.

 

Fressoz and Roire Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care, Criminal conviction of a journalist for possessing the tax documents and publishing the info about the salary of the head of the Peugeot company’s proving the salary increase was a violation. 

 

Dalban vs. Romania Criminal conviction of a journalist writing articles and accusing a public figure for involvement in a fraud was a violation.   

 

Lopes Gomes da Silva vs. Portugal  Right of an editor should be protected who uses strong language against a public figure including journalist who runs for the municipality elections by observing the journalistic principles.  

 

Krone Verlag GmbH and CoKG vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publication of a photograph criticizing a politician from receiving illegal salaries was disproportionate.  Such info is a matter of public interest; media’s function is to publish information on public interest. 

 

Perna vs. Italy Conviction of a journalist for blaming a judge to have close ties with a mafia without having a prove is not a violation. 

 

Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publisher from repeating the expression “racist agitation” in connection to an Austrian political party was disproportionate; Statement was a contribution to a public debate and an expression of the value judgment. 

 

Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2) Privacy of Politicians, Privace test: Contribution to a debate of general interest, Notoriety of the person concerned, The subject of the article and the nature of the information, The form and consequences of the publication, The severity of the sanction imposed    

 

Public Debate

 

Stoll vs. Switzerland No Public Interest and Debate. 

 

Von Hannover vs. Germany  Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care.

 

Fressoz and Roire Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care, Criminal conviction of a journalist for possessing the tax documents and publishing the info about the salary of the head of the Peugeot company’s proving the salary increase was a violation. 

 

Colombani and others vs. France Conviction of a journalist for criticizing the head of Morocco based on an official report violates the convention. The media article contributes to a public debate.  

 

Barfod vs. Denmark Defamation of Judges was illegal, but journalists should not fear of criminal or other types of sanctions.

 

Krone Verlag GmbH and CoKG vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publication of a photograph criticizing a politician from receiving illegal salaries was disproportionate.  Such info is a matter of public interest; media’s function is to publish information on public interest. 

 

Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publisher from repeating the expression “racist agitation” in connection to an Austrian political party was disproportionate; Statement was a contribution to a public debate and an expression of the value judgment.

 

Sürek (No. 2) vs. Turkey Convicting a journalist for disclosure the identity of the officials combating terrorism and responsible for severe law violation. 

 

Bergens Tidende and others vs. Norway Obliging the journalists to pay damages for articles of public interest about not satisfied patients is a violation.    


Media Influence

 

Jersild vs. Denmark Radio France and others vs. France Audiovisual media has more and powerful effect than the print media.

 

Interception of Telecommunications

 

Malone vs. UK There was no legal base for phone tapping. 

 

Protected Areas

 

Barthold vs. Germany   Murphy vs. Ireland  Radio. 

 

Steel and Morris vs. The United Kingdom  NGO's right to free expression. 

 

Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria Protection of pluralism.

 

Otto-Preminger-Institut vs. Austria  Films. 

 

Monnat vs. Switzerland Video-Recordings.

 

Vajnai vs. Hungary Wearing a five-pointed red star.

 

Von Hannover vs. Germany Right to privacy, Photo.

 

Müller and others vs. Switzerland Paintings. 

 

News Verlags GmbH vs. Austria Publisher of the Press. 

 

Perrin vs. United Kingdom  Internet.

 

Morice vs. France Freedom of Expression of Lawyers

 

Right to Information        

 

Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden Right to receive a TV program.

 

Guseva v. Bulgaria Freedom of information under Article 10 

 

Commercial Speech  

 

Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken vs. Switzerland    Murphy vs. Ireland    Casado Coca vs. Spain    Barthold vs. Germany Commercial Speech.    

 

Bohlen v. Germany (application no. 53495/09) and Ernst August von Hannover v. Germany (no. 53649/09) Publishing names of Public Figures without their consent in satirical cigarette advertisements                     

 

Protection of Private Life

 

Von Hannover vs. Germany Protection of a private life against paparazzi harassment. 

 

Sürek (No. 2) vs. Turkey Convicting a journalist for disclosure the identity of the officials combating terrorism and responsible for severe law violation. 

 

Tammer vs. Estonia Conviction of a Journalist for insulting a politician’s assistant by mentioning about his private life without offensive language is a violation.

 

Bohlen v. Germany (application no. 53495/09) and Ernst August von Hannover v. Germany (no. 53649/09) Publishing names of Public Figures without their consent in satirical cigarette advertisements   

 

Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2) Privacy of Politicians, Privace test: Contribution to a debate of general interest, Notoriety of the person concerned, The subject of the article and the nature of the information, The form and consequences of the publication, The severity of the sanction imposed     

 

Reputation of Legal Persons 

 

Firma Edv Für Sie, Efs Elektronische Datenverarbeitung Dienstleistungs GMBH Company has a right to reputation under Article 8.

 

Hate Speech

 

Jersild vs. Denmark  Gunduz vs. Turkey  Hate Speech.

 

Defamation 

 

Barfod vs. Denmark Defamation of Judges was illegal.

 

Prager and Oberschlick vs. Austria Defamation of Judges, Lack of a good faith.

 

Tolstoy Miloslavsky vs. United Kingdom – Disproportionate interference, Injunction and award of millions in damages for defamation was not justified and proportional. 

 

De Haes and Gijels vs. Belgium  Not justified to convict the journalists for defamation, journalists may be exaggerative and even provocative. 

 

Tammer vs. Estonia Conviction of a Journalist for insulting a politician’s assistant by mentioning about his private life without offensive language is a violation.

 

Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas vs. Norway Fining the journalists for defamation due to publication a statement of a third person about the possible violation of the seal hunting rules. 

 

Lopes Gomes da Silva vs. Portugal  Right of an editor should be protected who uses strong language against a public figure including journalist who runs for the municipality elections by observing the journalistic principles.    

  

Duties and Responsibilities of Media

 

Erdogdeu and Ince vs. Turkey Duties and responsibilities of media. 

 

Perna vs. Italy Conviction of a journalist for blaming a judge to have close ties with a mafia without having a prove is not a violation. 

 

Jersild vs. Denmark  Gunduz vs. Turkey  Hate Speech.

 

Prager and Oberschlick vs. Austria Defamation of Judges, Lack of a good faith.

 

Von Hannover vs. Germany  Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care.

 

Fressoz and Roire Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care, Criminal conviction of a journalist for possessing the tax documents and publishing the info about the salary of the head of the Peugeot company’s proving the salary increase was a violation. 

 

Sürek (No. 2) vs. Turkey Convicting a journalist for disclosure the identity of the officials combating terrorism and responsible for severe law violation. 

 

Lopes Gomes da Silva vs. Portugal  Right of an editor should be protected who uses strong language against a public figure including journalist who runs for the municipality elections by observing the journalistic principles.    

 

Thoma vs. Luxembourg An obligation of a journalist to distance from a provocative and insulting statement of others.

  

Protection of journalistic sources/Whisteblower protection for TV journalist

 

Roemen and Schmit vs. Luxembourg Goodwin vs. United Kingdom  Protection of journalistic sources.

 

Matúz v. Hungary Whisteblower protection for TV journalist

 

Investigative Journalism/Hidden Camera 

 

Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland Conviction of journalists for an interview using a hidden camera infringed their freedom of expression

 

Broadcasting

 

Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland Broadcasting licenses.

 

Jersild vs. Denmark

 

Press

 

Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi vs. Austria Prohibition of Press Distribution among Soldiers 

 

Observer and Guardian vs. The United Kingdom   The Sunday Times vs. The United Kingdom (no. 2) Prevention of a publication.

 

Observer and Guardian vs. The United Kingdom   The Sunday Times vs. The United Kingdom (no. 2)

 

Von Hannover vs. Germany 

 

Disproportionate interference

 

Tolstoy Miloslavsky vs. United Kingdom – Disproportionate interference, Injunction and award of millions in damages for defamation was not justified and proportional. 

 

Hertel vs. Switzerland Prohibition of publishing an article on the health dangers of microwave ovens was disproportionate.

 

Ernst and others vs. Belgium Conducting searches and seizures at home and offices of the journalists for breaching the confidence by members of the state service was not proportionate to the pursued aim was a violation as the journalists were not blamed for the violation of the state secrecy. 

 

Krone Verlag GmbH and CoKG vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publication of a photograph criticizing a politician from receiving illegal salaries was disproportionate.  Such info is a matter of public interest; media’s function is to publish information on public interest.

 

Roy and Malaurie vs. France A blanket ban on publishing of any type of information including a criminal complaint is disproportionate. 

 

Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publisher from repeating the expression “racist agitation” in connection to an Austrian political party was disproportionate; Statement was a contribution to a public debate and an expression of the value judgment.  

 

Restriction of Freedom

 

Garaudy vs. France   Holocaust denial 

 

PETA Deutschland vs. Germany  Courts' injunction against animal rights organisation's poster campaign evoking the Holocaust was legitimate.

 

Perinçek v. Switzerland Denial of Armenian Genocide 

 

Szima vs. Hungary Criminal conviction of a leader of a police trade union for offensive comments on the Union’s website was to be considered necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder.

 

Barfod vs. Denmark Defamation of Judges was illegal.

 

Perna vs. Italy Conviction of a journalist for blaming a judge to have close ties with a mafia without having a prove is not a violation. 

 

Prager and Oberschlick vs. Austria Defamation of Judges, Lack of a good faith.

 

Worm vs. Austria Fining a journalist for an article which may influence the trial was justified. 

 

Confiscation, Search, Seizure 

Vereniging Weekblad Bluf vs. The Netherlands Unjustified confiscation.

 

Ernst and others vs. Belgium Conducting searches and seizures at home and offices of the journalists for breaching the confidence by members of the state service was not proportionate to the pursued aim was a violation as the journalists were not blamed for the violation of the state secrecy. 

 

Banning, Prohibition of Publishing 

 

Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi vs. Austria Prohibition of Press Distribution among Soldiers. 


Hertel vs. Switzerland Prohibition of publishing an article on the health dangers of microwave ovens was disproportionate.

 

Krone Verlag GmbH and CoKG vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publication of a photograph criticizing a politician from receiving illegal salaries was disproportionate.  Such info is a matter of public interest; media’s function is to publish information on public interest.

 

Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt vs. Austria Injunction prohibiting a publisher from repeating the expression “racist agitation” in connection to an Austrian political party was disproportionate; Statement was a contribution to a public debate and an expression of the value judgment. 

 

Roy and Malaurie vs. France A blanket ban on publishing of any type of information including a criminal complaint is disproportionate. 

 

Conviction 

 

Oberschlick vs. Austria Protection of a harsh polemical expression against politicians (Trottel), Conviction for Insult a politician was a violation.

 

Fressoz and Roire Public Interest, Public Debate, Public Figure, Journalistic Duty of Care, Criminal conviction of a journalist for possessing the tax documents and publishing the info about the salary of the head of the Peugeot company’s proving the salary increase was a violation. 

 

Dalban vs. Romania Criminal conviction of a journalist writing articles and accusing a public figure for involvement in a fraud was a violation.   

 

Sürek (No. 2) vs. Turkey Convicting a journalist for disclosure the identity of the officials combating terrorism and responsible for severe law violation. 

 

Tammer vs. Estonia Conviction of a Journalist for insulting a politician’s assistant by mentioning about his private life without offensive language is a violation.

 

Perna vs. Italy Conviction of a journalist for blaming a judge to have close ties with a mafia without having a prove is not a violation. 

 

De Haes and Gijels vs. Belgium  Not justified to convict the journalists for defamation, journalists may be exaggerative and even provocative. 

 

Szima vs. Hungary Criminal conviction of a leader of a police trade union for offensive comments on the Union’s website was to be considered necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder.

ამოსაბეჭდი ვერსია