Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case concerning freedom of expression

Press release 23/2011
25 January 2011
 

The European Court of Human Rights has today handed down its judgment in a case concerning Finland, according to which the freedom of expression as secured in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated.

The case was about news on a court case that involved protection of privacy and freedom of expression. A newspaper had published two news items pertaining to a court case. The first of these items described the court case, revealing the plaintiff’s full name, the decision of the court and other details about the plaintiff’s private life. The information about the person’s private life was the same information that had been disclosed earlier in an afternoon newspaper that had been a party to the case described in the news. The later news only referred to the trial without mentioning names, and pondered in general terms the Penal Code regulation on infringement of the protection of privacy.

In the case, the national court had imposed fines on the journalist and editor-in-chief of the newspaper for spreading defamatory information. In addition, they and the newspaper were obligated to pay damages as well as the plaintiff’s legal expenses.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the consequences imposed to the individual and the newspaper restricted freedom of expression. The Court evaluated protection of privacy in relation to restriction of freedom of expression. It took into account its previous decision concerning the same plaintiff and afternoon newspaper. At that time it found that the plaintiff, as the communications officer of a presidential candidate’s campaign, was not completely a private person; rather, that the afternoon newspaper could describe the person’s private life factually and based on reality.

With regard to the case in question, the European Court of Human Rights considered the lapse of time to be the only essential difference, as the newspaper item about the court case was published two years after the presidential campaign. The European Court of Human Rights drew attention to the fact that the information concerning the plaintiff’s private life had been revealed earlier and that the news item in the newspaper was based on a public court case and a public court decision. The European Court of Human Rights considered that deliberation concerning the matter had not reached a reasonable balance between various interests.

The European Court of Human Rights ordered the State to pay the appellants a total of 29,030.08 euros in material damages and 8,000 euros for legal costs.

Additional information: Legislative Secretary Marjo Rantala, Unit for Human Rights Courts and Conventions, tel. +358 9 1605 5731