CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 septembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189 October 2015 H.-Ł. v. Poland (dec.) - 14781/07, 39824/09, 41361/09 et al. Decision 15.9.2015 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Extensive media coverage of a criminal trial and publication of photographs of the accused: inadmissible Facts – In 2012 the applicant was sentenced to 25   years’ imprisonment for murder. Since this was the first case in Poland in which the victim had met her alleged murderer on the internet, it attracted great media and public attention. The applicant brought proceedings against several publishers complaining about the disclosure of personal data, the dissemination of untrue information about him, a breach of the presumption of innocence and publication of photographs of him, but without success. Law – Article 8: The published information fell within the scope of the applicant’s private life. The domestic courts had established beyond doubt that the statements challenged by the applicant had a sufficient factual basis, being largely based on official documents, such as the indictment. The journalists had been present at the hearings, which were held in public, and had reported on their observations. The domestic courts had considered that the statements had not at any point disregarded the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. The murder trial had been a matter of legitimate public interest, concerning as it did the possible dangers of dating people met on the internet. The photographs taken of the applicant at the trial had been published with the permission of the prosecutor and the trial court. Their publication was justified by the nature of the alleged offences as more victims had contacted the authorities after seeing the photographs. Owing to the broad media interest, the press had also been allowed to be present at and to record parts of the hearings. In that connection, the Court recalled that the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in regulating the freedom of press to record hearings and transmit images from them. In the particular circumstances of the case, the State had acted within its margin of appreciation in assessing the needs to protect the applicant’s privacy and to ensure the fair administration of justice. Furthermore, the domestic courts had found that the applicant had suffered no prejudice in connection with the impugned publications. He had failed to substantiate either before the domestic courts or before the Court that he had suffered particular harm to his moral and psychological integrity or to his private life. In their assessments, the domestic courts had carried out a careful balancing exercise between the conflicting rights at stake in conformity with the Convention standards, in the light of a legitimate interest for the public to be informed of the occurrence of an unusually violent and serious crime. It was justified to find that the public interest in publishing the information in question, which had originated in public criminal proceedings, had outweighed the applicant’s right to the protection of his private life. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes