The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Category: Caselaw (Page 1 of 27)

Case Law, Strasbourg: Halet v Luxembourg, LuxLeaks, Grand Chamber strengthens whistleblowers protection – Dirk Voorhoof

LuxLeaks, one year laterOn 14 February 2023 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment that is both highly instructive and protective for whistle-blowers claiming protection of their right to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Continue reading

Case Law, CJEU: TU, RE v Google LLC: A step forward in the rational regulation of data? – Persephone Bridgman Baker and Katherine Silverleaf

The recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of TU, RE v Google LLC ([2022] EUECJ C-460/20) answered two questions referred to it by the German court regarding the delisting of results generated by search engines on the basis that they contain inaccurate information. Continue reading

Case Law, Strasbourg: Zemmour v France, Journalist’s conviction for inciting discrimination did not breach Article 10 – Catherine Arnold

ECHR upholds hate speech conviction against Eric Zemmour – DW – 12/20/2022In Zemmour v France [2022] ECHR 1130 (in French only), the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that the Article 10 right of the applicant, a journalist and political commentator, had not been violated by his conviction for inciting discrimination and religious hatred against the Muslim community in France under s.24 § 7 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881. Continue reading

Case Law, Strasbourg: IVT v Romania, Broadcast of interview with child without parental consent breached Article 8 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

In the case of IVT v Romania ([2022] ECHR 189) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights found that the domestic courts had breached an 11 year old ‘s Article 8 rights in dismissing her claim based on the broadcast of an television interview which had been conducted without obtaining parental consent.  Although the child’s face was blurred she was still identifiable  on the broadcast. The Court emphasised that parental consent was not a mere formality but was an important safeguard for the rights of children. Continue reading

Case Law: Griffiths v Tickle, Former MP loses appeal against publication of details of his abuse of his wife – Adam Glass

In a case highly dependent on its very unusual facts, the Court of Appeal in Griffiths v Tickle ([2021] EWCA Civ 1882) confirmed (in dismissing an appeal) that a mother and father involved in Children Act 1989 proceedings can be identified.  It agreed that a previous fact-finding judgment[pdf] by Her Honour Judge Williscroft at Derby County Court in November 2020, in relation to allegations of serious sexual abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, and violence, perpetrated by the husband on his ex-wife over a 10 year period, could be published (with relatively modest redactions relating to family members and the identity of the child). Continue reading

Case Law: Fairhurst v Woodard, Neighbour CCTV harassment and data protection claim succeeds – Percy Preston

Ring Video Doorbell 2 image 1On 12 October 2021, Oxford County Court handed down judgment in Fairhurst v Woodard (Case No: G00MK161).  A dispute between neighbours over the use of cameras for security purposes, the case gave rise to successful claims in harassment and data protection, and offers an important note of caution for those looking to install surveillance systems to protect their homes. Continue reading

Case Law, Strasbourg: Sanchez v France, Politician fined for failing to delete Facebook hate speech, no violation of Article 10

In the case of Sanchez v France [2021] ECHR 724 (available only in French) the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a politician for failing to promptly delete unlawful comments published by third parties on the public wall of his Facebook account did not breach his Article 10 rights despite his apparent lack of knowledge of the comments. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2023 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑