A.B. v. SWITZERLAND - 56925/08 - Chamber Judgment (French Text) [2014] ECHR 682 (01 July 2014)

A.B. v. SWITZERLAND - 56925/08 - Chamber Judgment (French Text) [2014] ECHR 682 (01 July 2014)

The Court found that while the applicant's conviction constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression and was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims (protection of confidential information, presumption of innocence, and privacy), the Swiss authorities failed to demonstrate that the interference was necessary in a democratic society. The domestic courts did not sufficiently balance the public interest in the information against the need to protect the investigation and the rights of the accused. The article addressed a matter of public interest, and the applicant's actions did not justify the imposed sanction. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 10.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 682
Parties
Applicant: A. B.; Respondent: Confédération suisse
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
01 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Chamber Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Confidentiality of Criminal Investigations, Journalistic Duties, Presumption of Innocence, Privacy Rights
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Confidentiality of Criminal Investigations Journalistic Duties Presumption of Innocence Privacy Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. B.

Applicant

Confédération suisse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Chamber Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conviction for publishing confidential documents from a criminal investigation violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while the applicant's conviction constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression and was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims (protection of confidential information, presumption of innocence, and privacy), the Swiss authorities failed to demonstrate that the interference was necessary in a democratic society. The domestic courts did not sufficiently balance the public interest in the information against the need to protect the investigation and the rights of the accused. The article addressed a matter of public interest, and the applicant's actions did not justify the imposed sanction. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found.

Orders

  • The respondent state is to pay the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  • The respondent state is to pay the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of costs and expenses.