Case Law, Strasbourg, Novaya Gazeta v Russia, libel claim by politician over corruption article, no violation of Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

The decision of the Court of Human Rights in Novaya Gazeta v Russia ([2013] ECHR 251) is an interesting reminder of the requirement of journalistic responsibility even in the context of public interest articles about politicians.  The case concerned a domestic libel judgment in favour of a Regional Governor based on an article containing a value judgment.  It was, nevertheless, held to have been justified under Article 10(2) as there was insufficient factual basis for the statement made.  The article had not been written responsibly.

Case Law, Court of Human Rights, Yildrim v Turkey – Closing down of “Google Sites” breached Article 10

In the case of Yildrim v Turkey (Case No 3111/10) the Court of Human Rights decided that a Court order blocking access to “Google Sites” in Turkey was a violation of Article 10.  The measure was not “prescribed by law” because it was not reasonably foreseeable or in accordance with the rule of law.  The judgment is available only in French.

Case Law, Strasbourg: Mouvement Raelien Suisse v Switzerland, Of Aliens and Flying Saucers – Gabrielle Guillemin

Earlier this month, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in Mouvement Raelien Suisse v Switzerland (Application no.16354/06). The case concerned the Swiss authorities’ refusal to allow a billboard campaign by the applicant movement on grounds that its activities (including the promotion of human cloning and sensual meditation) were immoral and contrary to public order. By a majority of 9 to 8, the Grand Chamber upheld the earlier Chamber judgment that the Swiss decision was within the margin of appreciation, among other things because the poster campaign was closer in its nature to commercial speech rather than political speech.

Case Law, Court of Human Rights: Centro Europa 7 Srl v. Italy, Grand Chamber on Media Plurality

On 7 June 2012, in the case Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy (application no. 38433/09)([2012] ECHR 974), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights re-affirmed the importance of media plurality under Article 10 of the Convention.   It held, by a majority, that the fact that an Italian TV company could not broadcast, having a license but no allocated broadcasting frequencies, was a breach of Article 10 (and of Article 1 of the First Protocol).

Case Law, Court of Human Rights, Kurier and Krone Verlag v Austria, no violation of Article 10 in case involving a child – Hugh Tomlinson QC

On 19 June 2012 in the cases of Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei  GmbH (No. 2) v. Austria (Application no. 1593/06) and Krone Verlag GmbH v. Austria (no. 27306/07), the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights In Chamber judgments held that there had been no violation of Article 10 in two cases in which newspapers had revealed the identity of a child and published photographs from which he could be recognised.  The publications were an interference with the child’s private life, and that the compensation of €9,000  and €130,000 was proportionate.