Case Law, Strasbourg: CICAD v Switzerland, Finding that allegation of “anti-semitism” was defamatory did not breach Article 10 – Calypso Blaj

27 07 2016

couv2_0In the case of CICAD v Switzerland (Judgment of 7 June 2016)(French only), the Third Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a judgment finding that an accusation of anti-semitism made by the applicant was unlawful did not violate Article 10.  The Court refused to engage with issues as to the definition of “anti-semitism” but accepted the conclusions of the national court that such a serious allegation could not be justified. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Bédat v Switzerland, Conviction and fine for a public interest article based on confidential criminal documents did not breach Article 10 – Calypso Blaj

7 05 2016

IllustreIn the case of Bédat v Switzerland  ([2016] ECHR 313) the Grand Chamber overturned the Chamber’s decision and reached the surprising conclusion that the conviction and fine imposed on the applicant journalist for publishing a public interest story containing information covered by the secrecy of criminal investigations did not constitute a violation of his Article 10 rights. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v Austria, Injunctions prohibiting attack on company’s reputation did not violate Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

23 02 2016

Austrian DoctorsIn the case of Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v Austria ([2016] ECHR 179) the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that an injunction prohibiting a doctors’ leader from criticising a company which provided private health care was not an unjustified interference with his Article 10 rights. Despite the public interest in the subject matter, the protection of the commercial reputation of the company justified the grant of interim and final injunctions. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Peruzzi v Italy, Criminal defamation is OK as long as it concerns judges – Joseph Williams

18 07 2015

260px-Consiglio_Superiore_della_MagistraturaIn the Chamber judgment in Peruzzi v Italy ([2015] ECHR 629, only in French) handed down on 30 June 2015, the Court of Human Rights dismissed an application under Article 10 by a lawyer who had been convicted of criminal defamation of a judge.  The decision is a surprising and retrograde one in the light of the recent Grand Chamber decision in Morice v France (see the Inforrm case comment). Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, No violation of Article 10 in ‘roman à clef’ case – Hugh Tomlinson QC

27 03 2015

Torre de MoncorvoIn the case of Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal (Judgment of 12 March 2015)(available only in French), the First Section of the Court of Human Rights held that the a libel conviction and award of damages against an author whose novel was held to have libelled members of her husband’s family did not violate Article 10. Read the rest of this entry »





The Prince, his mistress and his lovechild: a feminist perspective on Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France – Nani Jansen

25 02 2015

albert10_thumbMale celebrity has affair with woman. Woman shares story with public. Woman’s version of events gets shut down by the courts. The end. It is an all too familiar story that seems to repeat itself over and over again. When it comes to information disclosing the infidelity of powerful men, national courts have often been more than helpful in expeditiously securing the silence of the women involved in such affairs, accrediting more weight to the man’s claims of privacy, than the woman’s right to tell the tale of what was ultimately her affair as well. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal, Public authorities, criminal libel and a mistake of law – Hugh Tomlinson QC

25 01 2015

Montemor-o-VelhoIn the case of Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal (Judgment of 22 January 2015, only in French) the First Section of the Court of Human Rights held that libel conviction of the applicant for damaging the reputation of a municipal council was a violation of Article 10. Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,900 other followers