CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 novembre 2002

.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 } .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 47 November 2002 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 2) (dec.) - 62746/00 Decision 14.11.2002 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Publisher fined for naming police officer under investigation regarding death of asylum seeker: inadmissible The applicant company owns and publishes the weekly news magazine Profil. In June 1999, an article appeared in Profil concerning the death of a Nigerian national while being forcibly deported by three police officers. The name of one of the officers (K.) as well as his job title appeared above the headline. K. sued the applicant company for compensation under the Media Act. The Regional Court awarded K. compensation of ATS 25,000 (EUR 1,816). It noted that he was, at the time of publication of the article, suspended from duty pending a criminal investigation and disciplinary proceedings. The publication of his name had led to his being isolated within the local community and to arguments over the incident with family and friends. The court found that disclosure of K.'s full name had violated his legitimate private interests. The applicant company appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that while the various issues involved (treatment of asylum seekers, behaviour of the police) were of public interest, deportation practices could have been criticised without disclosing K.'s identity. The public interest in disclosure of the identity of the person concerned was thus outweighed by K.'s legitimate personal interests. Inadmissible under Article 10: The measure constitued an interference with the applicant company's right to freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. As to the necessity of the measure, the subject matter of the article was an issue of public concern and part of a political debate over the lawfulness of deportation practices in Austria. However, the article included information on criminal proceedings against the police officers, which were pending at an early stage. The applicant company was not prevented from reporting about all details concerning the issue except for the full name of K. The domestic courts took into consideration the public interest in the circumstances surrounding the death and the alleged abusive exercise of authority by the police officers. They weighed this public interest against the private interests of K. and found that disclosure of his identity had negatively affected his private and social life, thus infringing his legitimate interests. Having regard to the early stage of the criminal proceedings against K., care had to be taken to respect the presumption of innocence and prevent trial by the media. The reasons given by the domestic courts were sufficient for the relatively modest fine and the interference with the applicant company's rights could not, therefore, be regarded as disproportionate in the circumstances of the case: 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