CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sAC0AA09B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 281 06.04.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Five Chamber judgments against Finland concerning freedom of expression [1]   Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland (application no. 25576/04) Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland ( 43349/05) Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland (6372/06) Soila v. Finland (6806/06) Tuomela and Others v. Finland (25711/04)   CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR HAVING DISCLOSED THE IDENTITY OF A PUBLIC FIGURE’S PARTNER BREACHED THE CONVENTION   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) in all five cases No Violation of Article 7 (no punishment without a law) in the first, second, fourth, and fifth cases No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in the third and fourth cases of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are: four Finnish nationals in the first case (the editors-in-chief of the nationwide magazine Seura and the editor-in-chief and a journalist of the nationwide magazine Nykyposti); three Finnish nationals and the Finnish Publishing company Aller Julkaisut Oy in the second case (the editor-in-chief and two journalists in the nationwide 7   päivää magazine); one Finnish national and the Finnish Publishing company Kustannusosakeyhtiö Iltalehti in the third case (the editor-in-chief of the Iltalehti nationwide newspaper); one Finnish national in the fourth case (a journalist on the nationwide magazine   7 päivää) ; and two Finnish nationals and the Finnish Publishing company Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy in the fifth case (a journalist and the editor-in-chief publishing in the nationwide magazine Hymy) .   All applicants were involved in the publishing, between 7 January 1997 and 13   March   1997, of a total of nine articles in the above-mentioned Finnish newspapers concerning A., the National Conciliator at the time, and B., his female partner. The articles focused primarily on the private and professional consequences for A. of an incident of 4 December 1996. During that incident A. and B. entered A.’s home late at night while A.’s wife was there and, as a result of an ensuing fight, B. was sentenced to a fine and A. was sentenced to a conditional term in prison. All articles mentioned B. by name and gave separately other details about her, including her age, name of her workplace, her family relationships and her relationship with A., and her picture.   In all cases, B.’s identity was previously revealed in Finnish magazine publications dated at least as early as 7 January 1997.   In the spring of 1997 A. and B. asked that criminal investigation be conducted in respect of the journalists for having written about the 4 December 1996 incident and the surrounding circumstances. Between November 1999 and November 2001, criminal charges were brought against all applicants following which they were sentenced by the domestic courts to pay fines and damages for invasion of B.’s private life. The courts found in particular that since B. was not a public figure, the fact alone that she happened to be the girl-friend of a well-known person in society was not sufficient to justify revealing her identity to the public. In addition, the fact that her identity had been revealed previously in the media did not justify the subsequent invasions of her private life. The courts further held that even the mere dissemination of information about the private life of someone was sufficient to cause them damage or suffering. Therefore, the absence of intent on the part of the applicants to hurt B. was irrelevant. The courts thus concluded that the applicants had had no right to reveal facts relating to B.’s private life or to publish her picture.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   All applicants complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) about the high amounts they had to pay as damages to B. The applicants in all cases with the exception of Iltalehti and Karhuvaara complained also under Article 7 that it had not been clear from the Criminal Code provision applied that their conduct would have been punishable as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. The applicants in the third and fourth cases also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the lack of reasoning in the domestic courts judgments with which they were criminally sentenced.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 July 2004, 2 December 2005, 9 February 2006, and 15 February 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Having examined in earlier case law the domestic Criminal Code provision in question, the Court had found its contents quite clear: the spreading of information, an insinuation or an image depicting the private life of another person, which was conducive to causing suffering, qualified as invasion of privacy. In addition, even the exception stipulated in that provision - concerning persons in a public office or function, in professional life, in a political activity or in another comparable activity - was equally clearly worded.   Even though there had been no precise definition of private life in the law, if the applicants had had any doubts about the remit of that term, they should have either sought advice about its content or refrained from disclosing B.’s identity. In addition, the applicants were professional journalists and therefore could not claim not to have known the boundaries of the said provision since the Finnish Guidelines for Journalists and the practice of the Council for Mass Media, albeit not binding, provided even stricter rules than the Criminal Code.   However, there had been no evidence, or indeed any allegation, of factual misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of the applicants. Nor had there been any suggestion that they had obtained information about B. by illicit means. While it had been clear that B. had not been a public figure, she had been involved in an incident which had caused public disturbance outside of the family home of A., a well-known public figure with whom she had been in a close relationship. Therefore, B. could have reasonably been taken to have entered the public domain.   In addition, the disclosure of B.’s identity had been of clear public interest in view of A.’s conduct and his ability to continue in his post as a high-level public servant. The incident of 4 December 1996 had been widely publicised in the media, including in a programme broadcast nationwide on prime-time television as early as January 1997. Thus, the articles in question had not disclosed B.’s identity in this context for the first time.   Finally, in view of the heavy financial sanctions imposed on the applicants, the Court noted that B. had already been paid a significant sum for damages by the television company for having exposed, in January 1997, her private life to the general public. Repeating a violation did not necessarily cause the same amount of damage and suffering as the initial violation. And, last but not least, the Court noted that similar damages had been ordered to be paid to her also in respect of other articles published in other magazines by the other applicants listed above, which all stemmed from the same facts.   Accordingly, in view of the severe consequences for the applicants against the circumstances of the cases, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 in all five cases: by six to one votes in the case of Jokitaipale and Others , and unanimously in the other four cases.   The Court held that there had been no violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 7.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Finland was to pay the applicants sums ranging between 12,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 39,000 for pecuniary damage, between EUR 2,000 and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and between EUR   3,000 and 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   Judge Garlicki expressed a dissenting opinion in the Jokitaipale and Others case, the text of which is attached to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.