Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2014-9/3European Court of Human Rights: Axel Springer AG v. Germany (No. 2)In a judgment of 10 July 2014, the European Court found that the publication by the daily newspaper Bild ofsuspicions concerning the former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, was covered by journalistic freedom. InStrasbourg, the publisher of Bild , Axel Springer AG, had lodged a complaint arguing that the German courts hadinterfered with the right to freedom of expression and critical press reporting in a way that violated Article 10 ofthe Convention.An article in Bild had repeated a series of suspicions and doubts on the part of Mr Thiele – the deputy president ofthe Liberal Democratic Party’s (FDP) parliamentary group – with regard to Schröder’s appointment as chairman ofthe supervisory board of the German-Russian consortium Konsortium Nordeuropäische Gaspipeline (NEGP). Thielehad insinuated that Mr Schröder had resigned from his political functions because he had been offered a lucrativepost in the consortium headed by the Russian company Gazprom. In this regard, references were made to anagreement on construction of a pipeline that was signed in April 2005, in the presence of Mr Schröder and theRussian President Vladimir Putin. Having complained to the German courts, Mr Schröder obtained an order banningfurther publication of the passage, which reported Mr Thiele’s comments and insinuations of corruption.The European Court sharply disagrees with the reasoning and findings of the German courts. The Court refers tothe relevant criteria it has taken into consideration in earlier cases (see Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) andAxel Springer AG v. Germany (No. 1), (see IRIS 2012-3/1) when dealing with the conflicting rights of freedomof expression guaranteed by Article 10 and the right to protection of one’s reputation under Article 8 of theConvention as part of the right to private life.First the Court notes that the article in Bild did not recount details of Mr Schröder’s private life with the aim ofsatisfying public curiosity, but related to Mr Schröder’s conduct in the exercise of his term of office as FederalChancellor and his controversial appointment to a German-Russian gas consortium shortly after he ceased tohold office as Chancellor. Furthermore, there were sufficient facts, which could justify suspicions with regardto Mr Schröder’s conduct. Such suspicions amounted to the expression of a value judgment, without concreteallegations of Schröder having committed criminal offences. The Court also observes that Mr Thiele’s questionswere not the only comments to be reproduced in the Bild article, but supplemented a series of statements madeby different political figures from various political parties.As well as this, the Court could not subscribe to the German court’s opinion that the article in Bild should havealso contained elements in favour of the former Chancellor. The former Chancellor had a duty to show a muchgreater degree of tolerance than a private citizen. In the political arena, freedom of expression is of the utmostimportance and the press has a vital role as public “watchdog”. The punishment of a journalist for assisting inthe dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the pressto discussions of matters of public interest. The Court also considers that a newspaper cannot be required tosystematically verify the merits of every comment made by one politician about another, when such commentsare made in the context of a current political debate. As to the severity of the measure imposed, the Courtnotes that although only a civil-law ban on further publication of the impugned passage in the Bild article hadbeen imposed, it nonetheless considers that this prohibition could have had a chilling effect on the newspaper’sfreedom of expression.The Court concludes unanimously that Bild has not exceeded the limits of journalistic freedom in publishing thedisputed passage. The German courts have not convincingly established the existence of any pressing socialneed for placing the protection of Mr Schröder’s reputation above the newspaper’s right to freedom of expressionand the general interest in promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned. There hadtherefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.• Arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (cinquième section), affaire Axel Springer AG c. Allemagne (n◦2), requête n◦48311/10 du 10juillet 2014 (Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), case of Axel Springer AG v. Germany (No. 2), Appl. No. 48311/10 of10 July 2014)http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=17202FRIRIS 1Dirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaThe objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 2

European Court of Human Rights: Axel Springer AG (No. 2) v. Germany

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5766333/file/5766334

European Court of Human Rights: Axel Springer AG (No. 2) v. Germany

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography