CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 10 January 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9602/18 BILD GMBH & CO. KG against Germany lodged on 16 February 2018 communicated on 14 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the publication of video footage of a police operation without blurring the faces of the police officers involved. On 23 June 2013 the police had to intervene at a discotheque in Bremen. A man had aggressed a staff member and the police officers forced the attacker to the ground before arresting him. During the altercation, one police officer hit the man with his baton and kicked him when he was already on the ground. The applicant company operates a news website. On 10 July 2013 it published video footage of the incident with audio commentary criticizing the “brutal actions of the Bremen Police”. After the publication, another police officer who had assisted in the arrest filed a lawsuit against the applicant company to cease using the video material without blurring his face. The Oldenburg Regional Court found for the police officer; the applicant company’s appeals were to no avail. The applicant company relies on Article 10, arguing that the domestic courts’ decisions essentially prohibited any publication of images identifying police officers in the exercise of their official functions.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic courts sufficiently balanced the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention with the competing rights and interests at stake, given, notably, that their decisions related not only to the publication at issue but also prohibited any future publication of the unedited video footage?