CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2010

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 129 April 2010 Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland - 25576/04 Judgment 6.4.2010 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of magazine editors for publishing information on female friend of a public official: violation   Facts – The applicants worked on two nationwide magazines which in 1997 published articles about an incident involving A., who at the time was the national conciliator. The incident had concerned an altercation between A., a female friend B., and A.’s wife that had taken place outside the matrimonial home. As a consequence, B. had been fined and A. had been given a suspended prison term and dismissed from service. He and his wife had later divorced. The first article contained an interview with A. concerning the incident, his conviction and dismissal. It mentioned B.’s full name and carried a photograph of her. The second article dealt with A.’s feelings about his divorce and dismissal and mentioned B.’s name in connection with the incident. Following a complaint by B., criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants, who were ultimately convicted and ordered to pay a fine and compensation. Law – Article 10: The Court first noted that there was no evidence or even allegation of factual misinterpretation or bad faith on the part of the applicants. Nor was there any suggestion that the details about B. had been obtained by subterfuge or other illicit means. Even though B. was a private person, through her involvement in a widely publicised incident in front of a public figure’s house, she had inevitably entered the public domain. Moreover, her active involvement in the incident leading to A.’s dismissal and divorce had created a continuing element of public interest in her. The information in the two articles had mainly focused on A.’s behaviour and was voluntarily disclosed by him in the course of an interview. No details of B.’s private life were mentioned, except for her involvement in the incident and the fact that she was A.’s friend, both circumstances which were already common knowledge before the publication of the impugned articles. Notwithstanding that the event may have been presented in a somewhat colourful manner in order to boost sales of the magazines, that fact in itself could not suffice as justification for the applicants’ convictions. Finally, given that B. had already been awarded amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the disclosure of her identity in a television programme and in respect of other articles published in other magazines stemming from the same facts, the penalties imposed on the applicants had been disproportionate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). In view of its finding that the interference had been prescribed law, the Court also held that there had been no violation of Article   7. Article 41: EUR 22,000 jointly in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also the following judgments, adopted by the Court on the same date: Tuomela and Others v.   Finland , no.   25711/04; Jokitaipale and Others v.   Finland , no.   43349/05; Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v.   Finland , no.   6372/06; Soila v.   Finland , no.   6806/06; and Ruokanen and Others v.   Finland , no.   45130/06)   © 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