CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2016

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 196 May 2016 Salihu and Others v. Sweden (dec.) - 33628/15 Decision 10.5.2016 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Journalists fined for purchasing a firearm to illustrate an article they were writing on the local black market in weapons: inadmissible Facts – In 2010 several shootings took place in Malmö, allegedly due to the easy access to firearms in the city. With a view to investigating how easy it was to get hold of a weapon the three applicants, who were journalists, purchased a firearm on the black market, which they then surrendered to the police before publishing an article in the press the next day. They were subsequently convicted of illegally possessing a firearm and sentenced to pay fines. In their application to the European Court they complained, inter alia , that their convictions were in breach of their right to freedom of expression under Article   10 of the Convention. Law – Article 10: It was clear that the applicants’ convictions constituted an interference with their rights, which was in accordance with law and had the legitimate aims of protecting public safety and preventing disorder and crime. As to whether the impugned measures were necessary, the Court stressed that they did not concern the prohibition of the published article or sanctions in respect of publication, and were not based on restrictions specific to the press. The applicants were convicted solely because of their failure to comply with the relevant legislation, which applied to everyone. They must have known that their actions infringed the ordinary criminal law. Furthermore, although the article concerned a topic of public interest in view of the many shootings that had occurred in the area, it could have nevertheless been illustrated in other ways. As to the nature and severity of the penalty, all the applicants had had their sentences reduced to mere fines because of the journalistic purpose and the special circumstances of the case. The amount of the fines could was not excessive or liable to have a deterrent effect on the exercise of freedom of expression by the applicants or other journalists. Most importantly, the question of the applicants’ rights under Article   10 had been tried and argued on its merits before all three domestic instances, including the Supreme Court. All the domestic courts had stressed the importance of journalists’ role in society and made a balanced evaluation of all the interests at stake. Having regard to all the foregoing factors, and taking into account the margin of appreciation afforded to the State in this area, the Court found that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See also Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], 11882/10, 20   December 2015, Information Note   189 ; and Erdtmann v.   Germany (dec.), 56328/10, 5   January 2016, Information Note   192 )   © 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