![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgdDo_EMnwYbh7J3MGkaGMTp_d9aCqKo1RDqWsdD5A-4ukxT7v_3JStGcg__sDlNoMwlVEXnPohCq3VJH5giB9aze4_utZP6Wxs1TQ5oAUGdA_6F0vcpcte3XIrMn1QiSOVcymIaXoPLw/s320/SM.jpg)
The 7 judges chamber of the ECtHR recognized him a “victim”, since the £ 60 000 did not cover the absence of pre-notification before publishing the video seen 1.4 million times in 2 days (§§ 11, 67, 72, 73).
However the ECtHR did not accept that the absence of pre-notification violates the right to private life (Article 8 of the Convention), since:
1) A pre-notification requirement would not stop the journalists. Such a requirement would unavoidably have a public interest exception, and the fact of feeling yourself good in performing a Nazi (in an SM orgy) raises a public concern (§ 127).
2) A pre-notification requirement would violate the freedom of expression of journalists under Article 10 of the Convention (§ 129).
11 media companies and NGOs filed their observations.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire