CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 février 2012

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; 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. 149 February 2012 Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC] - 39954/08 Judgment 7.2.2012 [GC] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Prohibition on reporting arrest and conviction of famous actor: violation Facts – The applicant company is the publisher of a national daily newspaper with a large-circulation which in September 2004 published a front-page article about the star of a popular television series who had been arrested at the Munich beer festival for possession of cocaine. The article was supplemented by a more detailed article on another page and was illustrated by three pictures of the actor in question. Immediately after that article appeared, the actor obtained an injunction restraining any further publication of the article or photographs. The injunction on publishing the article was upheld on appeal in June 2005 (the applicant company did not challenge the injunction concerning the photographs). In November 2005 the injunction was continued in respect of almost the entire article and the applicant company was ordered to pay an agreed penalty, which, on appeal, was reduced to EUR   1,000. In the interim, in July 2005, the newspaper had published a second article, reporting that the actor had been convicted of unlawful possession of drugs following a full confession and had been fined. The actor applied for and obtained an injunction restraining publication of the second article on essentially the same grounds as for the first. That judgment was upheld on appeal. The applicant company was later ordered to pay two penalty payments of EUR 5,000 in respect of subsequent breaches of that injunction. Law – Article 10: It was common ground that the domestic courts’ decisions had constituted interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression; which interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. The Court went on to determine whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. Applying the criteria it had established in its case-law for balancing the right to freedom of expression against the right to respect for private life, the Court noted, firstly, that the published articles concerned the arrest and conviction of an actor, that is public judicial facts that could be considered to present a degree of general interest. Second, the actor was sufficiently well known to qualify as a public figure and, even though the nature of the offence was such that it would probably not have been reported on had it been committed by an ordinary individual, the fact that the actor had been arrested in public and had actively sought the limelight by revealing details about his private life in a number of interviews meant that his legitimate expectation that his private life would be effectively protected was reduced. As regards the third criterion – how the information was obtained and whether it was reliable – the first article about the actor’s arrest had a sufficient factual basis as it was based on information provided by the public prosecutor’s office and the truth of the information related in both articles was not in dispute between the parties. The applicant company had not acted in bad faith: not only had it received confirmation of the information from the prosecuting authorities, there was nothing to suggest that it had not undertaken a balancing exercise between its interest in publishing and the actor’s right to respect for his private life before concluding, in the light of all the circumstances, that it did not have sufficiently strong grounds for believing it should preserve the actor’s anonymity. As to the content, form and consequences of the publications, the articles had not revealed details about the actor’s private life, but had mainly concerned the circumstances of his arrest and the outcome of the criminal proceedings. There had been no disparaging comments or unsubstantiated allegations. The applicant company had not challenged a court injunction prohibiting it from publishing photographs and it had not been shown that the publication of the articles had resulted in serious consequences for the actor. As regards the final criterion, while the sanctions imposed on the applicant company were lenient, they had nevertheless been capable of having a chilling effect and were not justified in the light of the factors referred to above. Accordingly, the restrictions imposed on the company had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the actor’s private life. Conclusion : violation (twelve votes to five). Article 41: EUR 17,734.28 in respect of pecuniary damage, corresponding to penalties and costs incurred in the domestic proceedings less the two penalty payments of EUR   5,000. (See also Von Hannover v. Germany (no.   2) , 40660/08 and 60641/08, 7   February 2012, Information Note   149)   © 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