CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 150 March 2012 Axel Springer AG v. Germany (dec.) - 44585/10 Decision 13.3.2012 [Section V] Article 14 Discrimination Selection, by drawing of lots, of journalists authorised to attend criminal trial: inadmissible   Facts – Two men were charged with the murder of a couple and their two daughters and with several counts of theft. In accordance with the Juvenile Courts Act, the public was excluded from the trial because the defendants had been juveniles at the time of the thefts. The president of the regional court’s juvenile criminal division set a limit of nine on the number of journalists authorised to attend the trial. A selection process was set up whereby journalists were divided into three categories, each being entitled to three places. The first category concerned regional print media, the second supra-regional print media or press agencies, and the third television and radio (both public and private broadcasters). Forty press representatives subsequently applied to attend the trial. After lots were drawn, the applicant company’s representative, writing for the national daily newspaper Bild , failed to gain a place. Of the journalists selected in the “supra-regional print media” category, two worked for weekly magazines and the third was a press-agency representative. The applicant company complained to the division president about the selection method used, objecting that no journalists from a supra-regional daily newspaper had been selected in the category to which it belonged. It asked for the places to be reallocated and proposed a “pool” system so that the media admitted to the trial would not enjoy a monopoly on information. The division president refused its request. The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant company, holding that the company had not suffered a particularly serious disadvantage and that the complaint was not of fundamental importance in the particular circumstances of the case. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article   10: Although no right per se for the press to have access to a particular source of information could be inferred from the Convention, the exclusion of the applicant company from the courtroom when other journalists had been admitted fell within the ambit of Article   10. The division president had been perfectly aware of the interest of the press in following the trial and the public interest in being informed about it despite the restrictions that had had to be imposed on the public nature of proceedings because of the defendants’ age. The applicant company had, moreover, acknowledged this since it had not challenged the decision to allow only a limited number of journalists inside the courtroom. What it objected to was the method for selecting the journalists admitted, which in its view had given rise to discrimination against it (and against other publishing outlets that had not been admitted); this could have been avoided either by opting for a pool system (as long as the presence of a journalist from a daily newspaper was guaranteed) or by admitting only journalists working for press agencies. The applicant company had been subjected to a difference in treatment for the purposes of Article   14 –   in so far as it referred to “any other status”   – since it had been put in a less favourable position than other newspaper publishers in the same category whose journalists had been admitted to the courtroom. The restriction on the number of places, and hence the possibility that some journalists might not be selected, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of the defendants, who had been juveniles at the time of some of the alleged offences. As to whether the means employed had been reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued, the method of selection by lot had been incapable of favouring any particular press representative since it had afforded all interested journalists equal access to the neutral process of allocating the places available. The applicant company had not been prevented from reporting on the trial because the regional court had published press releases at the close of each day’s proceedings; indeed, the journalists who had been allowed to attend the trial had themselves relied on the press releases as their sole source of information in respect of the hearings from which all media representatives had been excluded. The journalists selected in the supra-regional print-media category had included a correspondent from a press agency, the general function of which was to make information available to other media (for a fee). It could not therefore be maintained that the applicant company had been unable to inform its readers about the trial. In conclusion, given that it had been necessary in the present case to restrict access to the hearings in the regional court and the system of drawing lots had afforded all interested journalists equal access to the selection process, and having regard to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States in this sphere, the applicant company had not been subjected to an unjustified difference in treatment. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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