ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no violation
Facts – The Communications Act 2003 prohibits political advertising in television or radio services, the aim being to maintain impartiality in the broadcast media and to prevent powerful groups from buying influence through airtime. The prohibition applies not only to advertisements with a political content but also to bodies which are wholly or mainly of a political nature, irrespective of the content of their advertisements. The legislation was the subject of a detailed review and consultation process by various parliamentary bodies, particularly in the light of the European Court’s judgment in the case of VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (in which a ban on political advertising had been found to violate Article 10 of the Convention), before it became law.
The applicant was a non-governmental organisation that campaigns against the use of animals in commerce, science and leisure and seeks to achieve changes in the law and public policy and to influence public and parliamentary opinion to that end. In 2005 it sought to screen a television advertisement as part of a campaign concerning the treatment of primates. However, the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (‘the BACC’) refused to clear the advert, as the political nature of the applicant’s objectives meant that the broadcasting of the advert was caught by the prohibition in section 321(2) of the Communications Act. The decision to refuse the applicant’s advert was upheld by the High Court and the House of Lords, with the latter holding in a judgment of 12 March 2008 ( [2008] UKHL 15 ) that the prohibition of political advertising was justified by the aim of preventing Government and its policies from being distorted by the highest spender.
Law – Article 10: The statutory prohibition of paid political advertising on radio and television had interfered with the applicant’s rights under Article 10. The interference was ‘prescribed by law’ and pursued the aim of preserving the impartiality of broadcasting on public-interest matters and, thereby, of protecting the democratic process. This corresponded to the legitimate aim of protecting the ‘rights of others’. The case therefore turned on whether the measure had been necessary in a democratic society.
The Court reiterated that a State could, consistently with the Convention, adopt general measures which applied to pre-defined situations regardless of the individual facts of each case even if this might result in individual hard cases. It emerged from the case-law that, in order to determine the proportionality of a general measure, the Court must primarily assess the legislative choices underlying the measure concerned. The quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of the measure was of particular importance. Also relevant was the risk of abuse if a general measure were to be relaxed. The application of the general measure to the facts of the case remained, however, illustrative of its impact in practice and was thus material to its proportionality. In sum, the more convincing the general justifications for the general measure were, the less importance the Court would attach to its impact in the particular case.
Both parties to the instant case had the same objective of maintaining a free and pluralist debate on matters of public interest, and more generally, contributing to the democratic process. The applicant NGO considered, however, that less restrictive rules would have sufficed. The Court was therefore required to balance the applicant NGO’s right to impart information and ideas of general interest which the public was entitled to receive against the authorities’ desire to protect the democratic debate and process from distortion by powerful financial groups with advantageous access to influential media.
In conducting that balancing exercise, the Court firstly attached considerable weight to the fact that the complex regulatory regime governing political broadcasting in the United Kingdom had been subjected to exacting and pertinent reviews by both parliamentary and judicial bodies and to their view that the general measure was necessary to prevent the distortion of crucial public-interest debates and, thereby, the undermining of the democratic process. The legislation was the culmination of an exceptional examination of the cultural, political and legal aspects of the prohibition and had been enacted with cross-party support without any dissenting vote. The proportionality of the prohibition had also been debated in detail in the High Court and the House of Lords, both of which had analysed the relevant Convention case-law and principles, before concluding that it was a necessary and proportionate interference.
Secondly, the Court considered it important that the prohibition was specifically circumscribed to address the precise risk of distortion the State sought to avoid with the minimum impairment of the right of expression. It only applied to paid, political advertising and was confined to the most influential and expensive media (radio and television).
The Court rejected the applicant NGO’s arguments contesting the rationale underlying the legislative choices that had been made over the scope of the prohibition, finding notably that:
– A distinction based on the particular influence of the broadcast media compared to other forms of media was coherent in view of the immediate and powerful impact of the former. There was no evidence that the development of the internet and social media in recent years had sufficiently shifted that influence to the extent that the need for a ban specifically on broadcast media was undermined.
– As to the argument that broadcasted advertising was no longer more expensive than other media, advertisers were well aware of the advantages of broadcasted advertising and continued to be prepared to pay large sums of money for it going far beyond the reach of most NGOs wishing to participate in the public debate.
– The fact that the prohibition was relaxed in a controlled fashion for political parties – the bodies most centrally part of the democratic process – by providing them with free party political, party election and referendum campaign broadcasts, was a relevant factor in the Court’s review of the overall balance achieved by the general measure, even if it did not affect the applicant.
– Relaxing the rules by allowing advertising by social advocacy groups outside electoral periods could give rise to abuse (such as wealthy bodies with agendas being fronted by social-advocacy groups created for that precise purpose or a large number of similar interest groups being created to accumulate advertising time). Moreover, a prohibition requiring a case-by-case distinction between advertisers and advertisements might not be feasible: given the complex regulatory background, this form of control could lead to uncertainty, litigation, expense and delay and to allegations of discrimination and arbitrariness.
Further, while there may be a trend away from broad prohibitions, there was no European consensus on how to regulate paid political advertising in broadcasting. A substantial variety of means were employed by the Contracting States to regulate political advertising, reflecting the wide differences in historical development, cultural diversity, political thought and democratic vision. That lack of consensus broadened the otherwise narrow margin of appreciation enjoyed by the States as regards restrictions on public interest expression.
Finally, the impact of the prohibition had not outweighed the foregoing convincing justifications for the general measure. Access to alternative media was key to the proportionality of a restriction on access to other potentially useful media and a range of alternatives (such as radio and television discussion programmes, print, the internet and social media) had been available to the applicant NGO.
Accordingly, the reasons adduced by the authorities to justify the prohibition were relevant and sufficient and the measure could not be considered a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
Conclusion: no violation (nine votes to eight).
See also VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, BAILII: [2001] ECHR 412, 28 June 2001; and TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, BAILII: [2008] ECHR 1687, 11 December 2008, Information Note no. 114; Bowman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24839/94, BAILII: [1998] ECHR 4, 19 February 1998)

48876/08 – Grand Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 362, 48876/08 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 491, (2013) 57 EHRR 21
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Communications Act 2003
Human Rights
Citing:
At HL – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
Cited – Sidabras And Dziautas v Lithuania ECHR 27-Jul-2004
Former KGB officers complained that they were banned, not only from public sector employment, but also from many private sector posts. This ‘affected [their] ability to develop relationships with the outside world to a very significant degree, and . .
Statement of Facts – Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Jan-2011
Statement of facts . .
At First Instance – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Admn 4-Dec-2006
The court was asked ‘whether a domestic statutory prohibition of political advertising on television and radio violated the human right of would-be political advertisers to freedom of expression through those media. ‘
Held: A declaration of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Cited – Gaughran v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to to the right of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain personal information and data lawfully obtained from the appellant following his arrest for the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Cited – AB v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 5-Apr-2017
This appeal is concerned with a challenge to the legality of legislation of the Scottish Parliament which deprives a person, A, who is accused of sexual activity with an under-aged person, B, of the defence that he or she reasonably believed that B . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .
Cited – Gallagher for Judicial Review (NI) SC 30-Jan-2019
Disclosure of older minor offences to employers 48 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.510775

64569/09 – Grand Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 586
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549223

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Freedom to impart information
Fine imposed on opposition MPs for showing billboards during parliamentary votes: violation
Facts – All four applicants are journalists. In 2003 the fourth applicant organised an interview with an insurance broker, posing as a potential customer. The interview was recorded without the broker knowing. He was subsequently informed of the recording, but refused to express any views on its content. Excerpts from the interview, in which the broker’s face was pixelated and his voice modified, were broadcast as part of a TV documentary on practices in the field of sales of life insurance products. All four applicants had been involved in preparing and broadcasting this documentary.
The applicants were convicted of recording conversations of third persons and of recording conversations without authorisation, respectively. The first three applicants were given monetary penalties of twelve day-fines of between EUR 80 and EUR 290 and the fourth a suspended penalty of four day-fines of approximately EUR 30, coupled with a probationary period of two years.
Law – Article 10: the interference in the applicants’ right to freedom of expression was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others, in this case the broker’s right to protection of his image, utterances and reputation.
The Court had already dealt with cases concerning attacks on the personal reputation of public figures, establishing six criteria in order to weigh freedom of expression against the right to private life: contributing to a debate of general interest, ascertaining how well-known the person being reported on was and the subject of the report/documentary, that person’s prior conduct, the method of obtaining the information, the veracity, content, form and repercussions of the publication, and the severity of the penalty imposed. The Court had also adjudicated cases of defamation related to individuals’ professional activities. However, the present case differed from those previous cases in that, firstly, the broker was not a well-known public figure and secondly, the impugned documentary was not intended to criticise the broker personally but to highlight specific commercial practices in his particular professional category. Therefore, the impact of the documentary on the broker’s personal reputation had been limited, which aspect had to be taken into account in applying the aforementioned criteria.
The subject of the documentary, namely the poor quality of the advice provided by private insurance brokers and therefore a question of consumer rights protection in this sector, had concerned a debate of major public importance. Clearly, the broker who had been filmed without his knowledge was not a public figure. He had not consented to being filmed and could therefore have reasonably believed that the conversation had been private. Nevertheless, the documentary at issue had focused not on the broker himself but on specific commercial practices within a specific professional category. Furthermore, the interview had not taken place in the broker’s offices or any other business premises. Consequently, the interference in the broker’s private life was less serious than if the documentary had concentrated personally and exclusively on him.
There had been no absolute prohibition in domestic law on the use of a hidden camera, which could be authorised under strictly defined conditions. Although the broker could legitimately claim to have been deceived by the applicants, they could not be accused of having acted deliberately in breach of professional ethics. They had not disregarded the journalistic rules laid down by the Swiss Press Council limiting the use of hidden cameras, but had in fact concluded that the aim of their documentary was such as to authorise the use such cameras. The Swiss courts had failed to reach a unanimous position on this question. Consequently, the applicants should be granted the benefit of the doubt regarding their desire to comply with the ethical rules applicable to the present case, as regards their method of obtaining information.
The veracity of the facts as presented had never been disputed.
The recording itself had only constituted a limited infringement of the broker’s interests, given that only a restricted group of individuals had had access to it. The decisive point in this case was that the applicants had pixelated the broker’s face so that only his hair and skin colour were still visible after this image transformation, and his voice had also been altered. Similarly, even though his clothes were visible, they had lacked any distinctive features, and the interview had not taken place in the broker’s usual business premises.
Accordingly, the interference in the broker’s private life had not been serious enough to override the public interest in the information on alleged malpractice in the insurance brokerage field. Despite the relative leniency of the monetary penalties, the sentence passed was liable to deter the media from expressing criticism, even though the applicants had not been prevented from broadcasting their documentary.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.

21830/09 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 494
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546888

Application for urgent injunction to restrain the defendant publishing what the claimants said was their confidential and private information.

Warby J
[2015] EWHC 1162 (QB)
Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
England and Wales

Media, Human Rights

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546189

The applicant complained that the refusal of the Federal Court to grant him a license to compensate for the illegal use of first names in an advertisement violated his right to respect for private life under the Article 8 of the Convention.

Mark Villiger, P
53649/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 195
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Human Rights

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543071

The claimants complained that as campaigning journalists, investigating security matters, their communications had been intercepted by the security services. Their concerns had been triggered by disclosures made by Snowden. The court now set our questions for the parties.

62322/14 – Communicated Case, [2015] ECHR 71
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541930

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Historian fined for damaging a well-known professor’s reputation as domestic law required non-journalists to prove veracity of their allegations: violation
Facts – The applicant, a film director, historian and author of press articles, referred to a well-known professor as a secret collaborator with the communist regime during a radio debate in 2007. In 2008 a regional court ordered the applicant to pay a fine and to publish an apology for having damaged the professor’s reputation. The applicant’s appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Law – Article 10: When balancing the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the professor’s right to respect for his reputation, the domestic courts had distinguished between the standards applicable to journalists and those applicable to other participants in the public debate without examining whether such a distinction was compatible with Article 10 of the Convention. In fact, under the Supreme Court’s case-law the standard of due diligence and good faith was applied only to journalists, while others, such as the applicant, were required to prove the veracity of their allegations. As the veracity of the applicant’s statements could not be proven the domestic courts had considered them untrue and therefore illegal.
However, the issue of whether or not the applicant was a journalist under the domestic law was not of particular relevance for examining the complaint under Article 10, as the Convention offered protection to all participants in debates on matters of legitimate public concern. What mattered in the present case was that the applicant had clearly been involved in a public debate on an important issue. The Court was therefore unable to accept the approach which had required the applicant to fulfil a higher standard of proof than that of due diligence only on the ground that under the national law he was not considered a journalist. The reasons on which the Polish courts had relied could thus not be considered relevant and sufficient under the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

30162/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1189, 30162/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1419
Bailii, Bailii Legal Summ
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.541472

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Injunction against newspaper restraining further publication of article concerning former head of government: violation
Facts – The applicant was the limited company Axel Springer AG. Among other activities, it was the publisher of the mass-circulation daily newspaper Bild. The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, in power since 1998, had lost early parliamentary elections. On 9 December 2005 it was announced that he had been had been appointed chairman of the supervisory board of a German-Russian consortium (NEGP). The contract for construction of a pipeline to be built by this consortium had been signed ten days before the early election.
In its edition of 12 December 2005 Bild published a front-page article with the headline: ‘What does he really earn from the pipeline project? Schroder must reveal his Russian salary’. The former Chancellor applied to the regional court for an injunction prohibiting any further publication of a passage describing the suspicions of Mr Thiele, deputy president of the FDP Liberal Democrat Party, namely that the former Chancellor had resigned from his political functions because he had been offered a lucrative position in the consortium and that the decision to call early elections had been taken with that sole aim, motivated by self-interest. The regional court ordered the newspaper not to re-publish the disputed part of the article. That judgment was upheld by the court of appeal, and a constitutional appeal by the applicant company against the court of appeal’s judgment was dismissed.
Law – Article 10: The disputed passage, which posed the question of whether the former Chancellor had wished to divest himself of his office on account of the position he had been offered in the consortium, was clearly of considerable public interest, given the former Chancellor’s high profile and the subject-matter of the report. Accordingly, freedom of expression had to be interpreted broadly in this case.
The German courts had forbidden the passage in question on the ground that it did not meet the relevant criteria for reporting suspicions.
In the article, the applicant company had reported comments undoubtedly made by Mr Thiele. The questions raised by him were more akin to a value judgment than to factual allegations that were susceptible to proof.
The questions covered by the injunction were made in a political context of general interest, did not allege that the former Chancellor had committed a criminal office and might have had a basis in various facts. Moreover, a head of government had numerous opportunities to publicise his or her political choices and to inform the public of them. Thus, the article had not been required to contain elements in support of the former Chancellor, and his office did not enable him to enjoy significantly greater tolerance than that extended to private citizens.
Further, although the applicant company had published the disputed passage in its newspaper, the questions themselves had been raised by a politician and member of the German Parliament. A newspaper could not be required to verify systematically the merits of every comment made by one politician about another where such comments were made in a context of public political debate. The former Chancellor could have brought judicial proceedings against the person who had made the impugned comments. Accordingly, having regard to the manner in which the newspaper had obtained Mr Thiele’s comments and taking account of the very recent nature of the announcement about the former Chancellor, issued three days prior to the article’s publication, and also of the generally transient nature of news events, there was no indication that the applicant company was not entitled to publish these comments without carrying out other preliminary checks. Equally, it could not be argued that no attempt had been made to contact the former Chancellor or that he had not had an opportunity to react to such questions.
With regard to the manner of publication, the article did not contain expressions concerning the former Chancellor which, by their very nature, could raise an issue under the Court’s case-law.
As to the impact of the publication, the Bild newspaper was published nationally, and had one of the highest circulation figures in Europe.
Lastly, with regard to the severity of the penalty imposed, the applicant company had merely been the subject of a civil-law injunction against further publication of one passage from the article. Nonetheless, this prohibition could have had a chilling effect on the exercise of the applicant company’s freedom of expression.
Regard being had to the foregoing, the applicant company had not exceeded the limits of journalistic freedom in publishing the impugned passage. It had not been established that there existed any pressing social need for placing the protection of the reputation of the former Chancellor above the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned. It followed that the interference in question had not been ‘necessary in a democratic society’.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.

48311/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 745, 48311/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1037
Bailii, Bailii Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 26-May-2017
Disclosure of Journalists’s Source ordered
The claimant had been investigated in connection with allegations (not proceeded with) of historic sexual abuse. The first defendant received information in advance of a search of the claimant’s house, and filmed and broadcast this from a . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537548

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Freedom to receive information
Non-enforcement of final court decisions granting to a journalist, the right to receive information of public character of the national authorities: violation
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Enforcement proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Non-enforcement of final court decisions granting to a journalist, the right to receive information of public character of the national authorities: violation
In fact – At the relevant time, the applicant was for six years the presenter of a television program broadcast on a local channel of a city on, inter alia, the issue of the use of public funds by the town Hall. For the exercise of his profession, the applicant made ??representations to the Mayor for the communication of several information of public character. He thus formulated three successive applications for different subjects. The mayor replied tersely to the applicant by three letters. Considering that they do not contain adequate information to its requests for answers, he appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of three separate actions aimed among other things to the conviction of the mayor to transmit that information. Three distinct final decisions the court of Appeal allowed the actions of the applicant and ordered the mayor to communicate to the vast majority of information requested. According to the applicant, the final decisions of the Court of Appeal remained unfulfilled, despite many efforts.
Law – Article 6 – 1: The applicant received three final judgments requiring the mayor to disclose certain information to public information. The domestic courts found that the letters inviting the applicant to withdraw photocopies of several disparate documents containing information likely to various interpretations, could not in any case satisfy the adequate enforcement of judgments. Moreover, the Court is unable to determine whether the documents to which these letters refer contain the information sought by the applicant, the Government fault for having paid the said documents in the file of this application or send a summary.
The Court accepted that the right of access to a court can not compel a State to enforce each civil judgment whatsoever and regardless of the circumstances. However, the authority in question in this case is part of the municipal government, which is an element of the rule of law, his interest in identifying with the proper administration of justice. But if the administration refuses or fails to perform, or delay doing so, the guarantees of Article 6 enjoyed a litigant during the judicial phase of the proceedings lose their raison d’etre. In addition, it is not appropriate to ask a person who has obtained judgment against the State following judicial proceedings, having subsequently engage enforcement proceedings to obtain satisfaction.
However, in this case, the applicant has held several approaches to the enforcement of judicial decisions, requesting the imposition of a fine mayor, by filing a criminal complaint and even requesting enforcement of a decision with a bailiff. Moreover, the grounds that the administration could have invoked to justify an objective impossibility of performance have never been brought to the notice of the applicant through a formal administrative decision. This is sufficient to conclude that, in this case, by refusing to enforce final judicial decisions ordering the disclosure of information of public character to the applicant, the national authorities have no effective access to a court.
Conclusion : violation (unanimously).
Article 10: There has been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression as a journalist. Like the case Kenedi c. Hungary, the present application relates to the applicant’s access to information of public character that were necessary in the exercise of his profession. The applicant has received three court decisions guaranteeing access to such information. The applicant sought legitimately to gather information on a topic of general importance, namely the activities of the municipality. In addition, given that his intention was to communicate to the public the information in question and contribute to the public debate on good public governance, the applicant has suffered a violation of his right to impart information. In addition, there was no proper enforcement of the contested judgments. In addition, the city has never argued that the requested information was not available. The complexity of the information requested and the important work required from the city to carry out their compilation were invoked only to explain the failure to provide this information in the shortest time. Having regard to the foregoing, the Government has provided no argument to show that the interference with the applicant’s right was prescribed by law or it pursued one or more legitimate aims. Therefore, there has been to reject the objections raised by the Government.
Conclusion : violation (unanimously).
Article 41: 4 000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage.
(See also: Tarsasag a Szabadsagjogokert Hungary c. , 37374/05, 14 April 2009, Information Note 118 ; Kenedi v. Hungary. , 31475/05, 26 May 2009, Briefing Note 119 ; Frasila Ciocirlan c and Romania. , 25329/03, 10 May 2012, Information Note 152 , and Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia. , 48135/06, 25 June 2013, note 164 information )

27329/06 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 648, 27329/06 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 803
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1 10-1

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535178

(European Commission of Human Rights) The Commission answered a question as to admissibility, namely whether the sentencing of a convicted criminal defendant in private infringed article 10. The complainants were two freelance journalists.
Held: The Commission considered that the principle established in cases such as Leander paragraph 74, ‘may not apply with the same force in the context of court proceedings’, in the light of the need to have regard to article 6 and ‘the important role played by the press in the administration of justice’. Even if article 10 was engaged, there was a ‘pressing social need’ for the sentencing in that particular case being conducted in private.
‘The Commission considers however that the general principles stated by the Court may not apply with the same force in the context of court proceedings . . In order that the media may perform their function of imparting information there is a need that they should be accurately informed . . Assuming that the decision of the court to hold part of the proceedings in camera constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by article 10 para 1 of the Convention, the Commission must consider whether this interference was prescribed by law and whether it was necessary in a democratic society for one or more of the purposes set out in article 10 para 2 of the Convention.’

133666/87, (1990) 67 DR 244
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .

Cited by:
Cited – A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others CA 31-Mar-2010
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.406782