Domar från Europadomstolen för mänskliga rättigheter

Yttrandefrihet, personlig integritet

 

Kort kommentar

Domstolens sammanfattning .  

En medlem i Elektrikerförbundet vägrade underkasta sig drogtest, eftersom hon kände sig kränkt av det. Frågan gick vidare till AD och sedan Europa-domstolen, som nu har godkänt förfarandet. Det intressanta är motiveringen, nämligen att kollektivavtal när det gäller inskränkningar i mänskliga rättigheter enligt konventionen i Sverige jämställs med lag. Allts ett fall bakåt för integriteten men ett fall framåt för det svenska kollektivtalets ställning. Jag vet inte vilket som var viktigast? Du har hela beslutet här. Det är inskannat så det kan finnas smärre felaktigheter.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 46210/99
by Inga-Lill WRETLUND
against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 March 2004

WRETLUND v. SWEDEN DECISION

Europadomstolen CASE OF BERGENS TIDENDE AND OTHERS v. NORWAY 

Yttrandefrihet. Bergens Tidende skrev en artikelserie om en plastikkirurg som man menade felbehandlade sina klienter. Högsta domstolen fann tidningen skadeståndsskyldig för ärekränkning. Euroropadomsstolen fann att intresset av yttrandefrihet övervägde läkarens krav på skydd för sin heder. En intressant dom eftersom domstolen gör en ren sakprövning av yttrandefrihetsvillkoren i ett land. 

 

Europadomstolen CASE OF BERGENS TIDENDE AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

CASE OF NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & CoKG v. AUSTRIA

(Application no. 31457/96) En ökänd nazist åtalas. Tidningen beskriver hans bakgrund och publicerar en bild. Innebar publiceringen av bilden en kränkning av nazistens integritet. Domstolen besvara frågan med nej. Saken rörde angrepp på den demokratiska samhället. Det fanns därför ett sådant allmänintresse att det övervägde den enskildes rätt till integritet. Ett intressant principavgörande som har direkt betydelse för svensk rätt när det gäller rätten att publicera bilder av en icke dömd person.

 
CASE OF NEWS VERLAGS GmbH & CoKG v. AUSTRIA

58. The Court acknowledges that there may be good reasons for prohibiting the publication of a suspect’s picture in itself, depending on the nature of the offence at issue and the particular circumstances of the case. A similar line of argument was followed by the Supreme Court, which stated that even the publication of a picture accompanied by a correct statement of fact could infringe the legitimate interests of the person concerned. However, no reasons to that effect were adduced by the Vienna Court of Appeal. Nor did it, contrary to the Vienna Commercial Court, carry out a weighing of B.’s interest in the protection of his picture against the public interest in its publication which, as the Government pointed out, is required under section 78 of the Copyright Act. This is all the more surprising as the publication of a suspect’s picture is not generally prohibited under section 7a of the Austrian Media Act unless the suspect is a juvenile or the offences are only of a minor nature, but depends precisely on a weighing of the respective interests. In sum the reasons adduced by the Vienna Court of Appeal, though "relevant", are not "sufficient".

59. It is true, as the Government pointed out, that the injunctions did in no way restrict the applicant company’s right to publish comments on the criminal proceedings against B. However, they restricted the applicant company’s choice as to the presentation of its reports, while it was undisputed that other media were free to continue to publish B.’s picture throughout the criminal proceedings against him. Having regard to these circumstances and to the domestic courts’ finding that it was not the pictures used by the applicant company but only their combination with the text that interfered with B.’s rights, the Court finds that the absolute prohibition of the publication of B.’s picture went further than was necessary to protect B. against defamation or against violations of the presumption of innocence. Thus, there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the injunctions as formulated by the Vienna Court of Appeal and the legitimate aims pursued.

60. It follows from these considerations that the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression was not "necessary in a democratic society". Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

 

Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway 

Bakgrunden är den uppmärksammade kamp som sälinspektören  Odd Lindberg förde för att förbättra förhållandena vid den norska säljakten. Domen är principiell på flera sätt.

Huvudfrågan gäller om en tidning utan att själv kontrollera sanningshalten kan publicera uppgifter som lämnats av en offentligt anställd sälinspektör i en rapport i tjänsten som myndigheten väljer att inte publicera  eftersom  säljägarna i denna anklagades för brottslig verksamhet. Deras identitet avslöjas inte men den kunde med hänsyn till omständigheterna lätt fastställas av läsarna av tidningen. Domstolen menar det och det kan väl synas som ett ganska naturligt ställningstagande eftersom det i praktiken var omöjlig att kontrollera sanningshalten, och det skulle ha medfört att rapporten inte kunde offentliggöras.

Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway

Having regard to the various factors limiting the likely harm to the individual seal hunters’ reputation and to the situation as it presented itself to Bladet Tromsø at the relevant time, the Court considers that the paper could reasonably rely on the official Lindberg report, without being required to carry out its own research into the accuracy of the facts reported. It sees no reason to doubt that the newspaper acted in good faith in this respect.

73. On the facts of the present case, the Court cannot find that the crew members’ undoubted interest in protecting their reputation was sufficient to outweigh the vital public interest in ensuring an informed public debate over a matter of local and national as well as international interest. In short, the reasons relied on by the respondent State, although relevant, are not sufficient to show that the interference complained of was "necessary in a democratic society". Notwithstanding the national authorities’ margin of appreciation, the Court considers that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restrictions placed the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.