Case Law: Strasbourg, Stankiewicz v. Poland, Responsible public interest journalism protected by Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

28 10 2014

Rzeczpospolita_9-06-2010_paliwa_5-40In the case of Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland [2014] ECHR 1061, the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 10 where the domestic courts had found that an article about a demand for a bribe by a public official had breached the official’s rights.  This was a public interest story in relation to which the applicants had complied with the tenets of responsible journalism. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Firma EDV für Sie v Germany, Article 8, companies and the right to reputation – Hugh Tomlinson QC

9 10 2014

ARCHITECTURE STOCKThe decision in Firma EDV für Sie, EfS Elektronische Datenverarbeitung Dienstleistungs GmbH v Germany (App No, 32783/08, 2 September 2014) involved a consideration of the interesting question as to whether a company has a right to reputation under Article 8.  The Fifth Section of the Court proceeded on the basis that a company did have such rights. The application was, however, found to be inadmissible on the basis that a fair balance had been struck between Articles 8 and 10 by the domestic court. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Brand v Berki, Russell Brand and Jemima Khan obtain continuing “anti-harassment” order against masseuse – Oliver Murphy

2 10 2014

Brand-KhanThe High Court has recently granted an extension to an anti-harassment injunction taken out by Russell Brand and Jemima Goldsmith, otherwise known as Jemima Khan (the Claimants), against a masseuse (the Defendant). In Brand & Anor v Szilvia (aka Sylvie) Berki [2014] EWHC 2979 (QB) (11 September 2014) Mrs Justice Carr outlined the thresholds necessary for a successful application for an “anti-harassment” injunction. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Karácsony and Szél v. Hungary, sanctions on protesting parliamentarians breached Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

23 09 2014

HungarianParliamentBuildingIn the cases of Karácsony and v Hungary and Szél v.Hungary (applications nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13) decided on 16 September 2014 the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that financial sanctions imposed by the Speaker on demonstrating members of the opposition in the Hungarian Parliament were a violation of Article 10. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Australia: Bleyer v Google Inc, “Search results” libel action stayed as “disproportionate” – Hugh Tomlinson QC

22 08 2014

Roland BleyerIn the case of Bleyer v Google ([2014] NSWSC 897) the Supreme Court of New South Wales stayed a libel action  against Google Inc based on defamatory snippets because the resources of the court and the parties that would be expended were disproportionate to the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining vindication.  In the course of her judgment McCallum J held that Google was not the publisher of the results produced by its search engine. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Kadir v Channel S Television, Assessment of damages in a libel claim – Sara Mansoori

31 07 2014

channelsuksThe case of Kadir v Channel S Television [2014] EWHC 2305 was a hearing for assessment of damages in a libel claim following default judgment.  The Defendant, a Channel broadcasting in the UK in the Bengali language, carried a news item in December 2011 alleging that the Second Claimant, a money transfer business, was reasonably suspected of fraud and that its director, Mr Kadir, had dealt with suspicions against the business’ employees in a highly evasive and incompetent manner. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Axel Springer AG v Germany (No.2), The Politics of Article 10 – Alexia Bedat

23 07 2014

Was-verdient-er-wirklich-beim-Gas-Pip-2-The Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights forcefully reiterated the importance of freedom of expression in the political sphere in the case of Axel Springer AG v Germany (No.2) ([2014] ECHR 745)(French only). The Court held that the German courts had erred in finding that an article commenting on the circumstances in which the former Federal Chancellor of Germany had put an end to his term in office had overstepped the limits of journalistic freedom. Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,935 other followers