CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘ECHR’ Category

Privacy law stops stories before they are published, says Justice Eady: “Newspapers are refraining from publishing privacy-invading stories because of the effectiveness of an emerging law of privacy with its roots in the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain’s leading judge in privacy cases has said.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Here is some interesting news, finally! )

Finn turns to ECHR after prosecution for discussing DRM cracking: “A Finnish man has asked the European Court of Human Rights to defend his right to discuss encryption systems used by the entertainment industry. He says that Finland’s implementation of the EU’s Copyright Directive restricts his right to free speech.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Court of Appeal got prisoner privacy wrong, rules ECHR: “Prisoners have the same right to privacy in medical correspondence as they do in relation to communication with their MPs, the European Court of Human Rights has said. The Court has overturned a ruling of the UK’s Court of Appeal.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

‘Ceaseless liability’ for internet libel is not a barrier to free speech, rules ECHR: “Publishers’ indefinite liability for defamatory material in their online archives is not a restriction on their rights to free speech, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled. The decision backs a 160-year-old rule of English law.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

European Journalism Centre: Times fails to overturn ‘internet publication rule’ in court case

[European Court of Human Rights] Newspapers will continue to be sued multiple times over the same website story after the Times lost a case in the European court of human rights Tuesday. In a decision condemned by media lawyers, the court rejected arguments in favour of a ’single publication rule’, prevalent in the US, where defendants can only be sued once for publishing a defamatory statement. The case was brought by the Times newspaper after an alleged Russian mafia boss sued the paper for a second time for libel over internet articles. He had previously sued the Times for the same articles printed in the newspaper. The Times argued that the ‘internet publication rule’ under English law breached the right to freedom of expression. The internet publication rule allows for a libel action each time someone accesses archived material on the internet. Anthony Lester QC, representing the Times, had argued for a common international rule about internet publication. ‘An article might be read in 100 different countries with 100 different libel laws, giving rise to multiple liability with no clear guidance on how long is too long,’ he said. However, the court declined to set a clear time period after which archived articles would stop giving rise to libel claims. (The Guardian)

No violation of Article 10 with regards to a cartoon which was published on 13 September, 2001. The European Court of Human Rights held that the publication of a drawing (cartoon) representing the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, with a caption which parodied the advertising slogan of a famous brand: “We have all dreamt of it… Hamas did it” provoked a certain public reaction, capable of stirring up violence and demonstrating a plausible impact on public order in a politically sensitive region, namely the Basque Country. The drawing was published in the Basque weekly newspaper Ekaitza on 13 September, 2001, two days after the attacks of September 11.

The European Court of Human Rights on 02.10.2008 notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Leroy v. France (application no. 36109/03).

The Court held unanimously that there had been

· no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the applicant’s conviction for complicity in condoning terrorism;

· a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention on account of the failure to communicate to the applicant the reporting judge’s report to the Court of Cassation.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court concluded unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Leroy and awarded him 1,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
(more…)

Human rights court rules UK DNA grab illegal: “

Jacqui Smith: Law to remain while judgment ‘carefully considered’

Updated The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it is illegal for the government to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints belonging to two men never convicted of any crime.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

The case concerned the retention by the UK authorities of the applicants’ fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles after criminal proceedings against them were terminated by an acquittal and were discontinued respectively. The European Court of Human Rights in one its most important decisions found a violation of article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court in summary stated that:

“The Court observes that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal-justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests. In the Court’s view, the strong consensus existing among the Contracting States in this respect is of considerable importance and narrows the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State in the assessment of the permissible limits of the interference with private life in this sphere. The Court considers that any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bears special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.”

(more…)

Data blunders can breach human rights, rules ECHR: “The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the Finnish government to pay out €34,000 because it failed to protect a citizen’s personal data. One data protection expert said that the case creates a vital link between data security and human rights.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Court rules 90s UK.gov wiretaps violated human rights: “

Home Office: What’s it got to do with RIPA?

Liberty called for an overhaul of RIPA yesterday after the European Court of Human Rights slapped the UK government over the way it applied the UK’s previous interception legislation.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)