CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 juin 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. June 1994 Jacubowski v. Germany - 15088/89 Judgment 23.6.1994 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Order restraining journalist from continuing to distribute a circular accompanying press   cuttings critical of his former employer: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] Interference with exercise of freedom of expression: resulted from injunction issued by Düsseldorf Court of Appeal — was prescribed by law — pursued a legitimate aim under the Convention, the protection of the reputation or rights of others. Whether necessary in a democratic society: national courts had been unanimous in regarding applicant's course of action as an act of unfair competition in breach of "accepted moral standards" and in attaching less importance to the fact that he had been personally attacked in a press release issued by his former employer — interference not disproportionate, as applicant had retained right to voice his opinions and defend himself by any other means. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes