Европейский суд по правам человека
10 февраля 2009 года
Facts:
The applicants - a journalist and an editor-in-chief - published an article concerning pending criminal fraud proceedings against a businesswoman referred to as “X”. The article alleged that she had obtained pension payments through fraud, and included her photograph, which had been taken and published with her consent. At the time of publication, X was only a suspect, not yet convicted. Finnish courts held the applicants liable for violating X’s privacy rights under national privacy law and ordered them to pay damages. The Supreme Court ruled that, while there was no defamation, the publication had nonetheless violated X’s right to privacy.
Complaint:
The applicants claimed that imposing damages for reporting on ongoing criminal proceedings and publication of a photo with consent, violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
Court’s ruling:
The Court found a violation of Article 10. It held that while freedom of expression is not absolute even when the subject is a matter of public concern, the national courts had failed to properly balance it with X’s privacy rights. The article concerned a public figure and a matter of public interest. The domestic decision overlooked key factors: the discussion was based on formal charges from a bill of indictment; the article clearly stated X was merely charged, not convicted; and the photo had been published with X’s consent. The interference was neither necessary in a democratic society nor justified by a pressing social need, and therefore constituted a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression.