CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 février 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 39 February 2002 Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria - 34315/96 Judgment 26.2.2002 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Injunction of publishing photograph of politician: violation Facts : The applicant company publishes a newspaper. It published in its Carinthian regional edition a series of articles on the financial situation of Mr Posch, a local politician who was a member of both the national and the European parliaments. The articles were accompanied by photographs of him. He applied for and was granted an injunction prohibiting publication of his photograph in connection with such articles. The court considered that, as his face was not generally known, his legitimate interests were infringed by creating the possibility of identifying him. It added that the photographs had no information value. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed and an extraordinary appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court. Law : Article 10 – The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. As to the necessity of the interference, the subject matter of the articles dealt with a matter of public concern which did not wholly fall within the Mr Posch’s private sphere and the Austrian courts failed to take into account the essential function the press fulfils and its duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest. It is of little importance whether a person or his or her picture is actually known to the public: what counts is whether the person has entered the public arena. In this case, there was no doubt that as a politician Mr Posch had done so and had to bear the consequences. Thus, there was no valid reason why the applicant should be prevented from publishing his picture. Particular importance may be attached to the fact that there was no disclosure of details about his private life. Moreover, Mr Posch’s curriculum vitae and photograph appear on the Austrian Parliament’s internet site. Even within the scope delimited by the terms of the injunction, the measure did not correspond to a pressing social need. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant the amount of the costs awarded to Mr Posch in the domestic proceedings. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, it considered that the finding of   a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction. It made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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