Khmel v. Russia At the time of the facts, the applicant was a member of the Murmansk regional legislature. He was taken to a police station on suspicion of drunk driving. He refused to give his name, behaved in an unruly manner and would not leave the building when asked to do so. The police chief invited television crews to the station, and that afternoon the applicant was filmed whilst in a dishevelled state and acting inappropriately. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention, as in the absence of the applicant\u2019s consent, the release of the video recording to the regional television had been in flagrant breach of the domestic law.<\/p>\n
Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH v. Germany concerned the complaint by two media companies about a judicial order banning the publication of images in which the defendant in a criminal trial for murder could be identified.<\/p>\n
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. It found that the national judge had carefully balanced the opposing interests. The order had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely to protect the personality rights of the defendant \u2013 who was not a public figure \u2013 during his trial, in the course of which he was to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The Court noted in particular that the order had not been a particularly severe restriction on reporting; taking images as such had not been limited.<\/p>\n
Mediengruppe \u00d6sterreich GmbH v. Austria e concerned a court order for the daily newspaper \u00d6sterreich, published by the applicant company, not to publish particular information about an individual indirectly connected to the campaign of the Freedom Party of Austria candidate in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. The newspaper had published a photo of the brother of the candidate\u2019s office manager in a \u201cright-wing scene\u201d and revealed that he was a \u201cconvicted neo-Nazi\u201d. The conviction dated from 20 years before and was spent. \u201d<\/p>\n
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, finding that, in the specific circumstances of the case the reasons adduced by the domestic courts had been undertaken in conformity with the Court\u2019s case-law criteria and had been \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d to justify the interference with the applicant company\u2019s right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court saw no strong reasons to substitute the domestic courts\u2019 views with its own and held that the interference had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n
In Khuzhin v Russia, the publication of photographs on television of persons accused of serious crimes was found to have no legitimate purpose informational and to violate Article 8.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Publishing Images In Von Hannover v Germany involved proceedings by Princess Caroline of Monaco. She claimed proceedings in Germany inadequately protected her against the publication of private photographs. The court stated. \u201cthe Court reiterates the concept of private life extends to aspects relating to personal identity such as o the person\u2019s name or a person\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[346],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23021"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23021"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23021\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23540,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23021\/revisions\/23540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}