Teutas - Diritto & Tecnologia

The Court, having had regard to the important role the Internet played for media activities generally, and for the exercise of the freedom of expression, found that the absence of legal regulation allowing journalists to use information obtained from the Internet without fear of being sanctioned, was an obstacle to the press exercising their vital function of a “public watchdog”.

In addition, under Ukrainian law, journalists might be exempt from the payment of compensation if they had acted in good faith, had checked the information and had not disseminated the untrue information intentionally. The applicants had raised all these arguments in their defence yet it had been ignored by the national courts.

The Court concluded that, in the absence of clarity in domestic law in respect of journalists using information obtained from the Internet, the applicants could not have foreseen the consequences of their action. Therefore, the Convention requirement that any limitation to freedom of expression had to have a basis in law, which was clear, accessible and foreseeable, was not met.

Allegati:

File	Dimensione del File
Editorial-Board-of-Pravoye-Delo.pdf	337 Kb

---

Aggiungi questo articolo ai tuoi social bookmarks preferiti

CASE OF S. H. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 57813/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 April 2010
Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of S. H. and Others v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE

11.  The case originated in an application (no. 57813/00) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Austrian nationals, Ms S. H., Mr D.H., Ms. H. E.-G. and Mr M.G. (“the applicants”), on 8 May 2000. The President of the Chamber acceded to the applicants' request not to have their names disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
2.  The applicants were represented by Mr H.F. Kinz and Mr W.L. Weh, both lawyers practising in Bregenz. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Trauttmansdorff, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3.  The applicants alleged in particular that the provisions of the Austrian Artificial Procreation Act prohibiting the use of ova from donors and sperm from donors for in vitro fertilisation, the only medical techniques by which they could successfully conceive children, violated their rights under Article 8 of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with Article 14.

---

Aggiungi questo articolo ai tuoi social bookmarks preferiti

The Court found that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests, and that the respondent State had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard

---

Aggiungi questo articolo ai tuoi social bookmarks preferiti

Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Armenian authorities’ refusal to grant the applicants’ requests for broadcasting licences.

---

Aggiungi questo articolo ai tuoi social bookmarks preferiti