The link is to the judgment. The conclusion of the judgment is:
However, the Court has consistently emphasised the need to look beyond the facts of the present case and to consider the broader impact of a pre-notification requirement. The limited scope under Article 10 for restrictions on the freedom of the press to publish material which contributes to debate on matters of general public interest must be borne in mind. Thus, having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the significant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law.
It is just not practicable to have a legal requirement to notify people every time you are going to talk about facts relating to them giving sufficient time for them to get an injunction.
There has been a lot of criticism of the European Court of Human Rights, but on this decision I think they got it right.
The proposal in the editors code that people are normally notified for comment is a good one, but the extra step of always requiring notification is a step too far - as the court have agreed.
This was a divisional court of 7 judges who were unanimous.
However, the Court has consistently emphasised the need to look beyond the facts of the present case and to consider the broader impact of a pre-notification requirement. The limited scope under Article 10 for restrictions on the freedom of the press to publish material which contributes to debate on matters of general public interest must be borne in mind. Thus, having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the significant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law.
It is just not practicable to have a legal requirement to notify people every time you are going to talk about facts relating to them giving sufficient time for them to get an injunction.
There has been a lot of criticism of the European Court of Human Rights, but on this decision I think they got it right.
The proposal in the editors code that people are normally notified for comment is a good one, but the extra step of always requiring notification is a step too far - as the court have agreed.
This was a divisional court of 7 judges who were unanimous.
Comments
By "pretending to be courts", they are intimidating innocent parents and creating enormous trauma and violence for the children concerned.
Law makers should also realise that mainstream media are gagged from exposing sex scandals, while bloggers are prevented from spreading words of activism, i.e. helping "public interest cases", without any benefit for themselves.
Sabine
Publisher, http://victims-unite.net