BEDAT v. SWITZERLAND - 56925/08 (Judgment (Merits) : Court (Grand Chamber)) [2016] ECHR 313 (29 March 2016)

BEDAT v. SWITZERLAND - 56925/08 (Judgment (Merits) : Court (Grand Chamber)) [2016] ECHR 313 (29 March 2016)

The Grand Chamber held that the applicant's conviction and fine for publishing information covered by the secrecy of criminal investigations did not violate Article 10 of the Convention. The interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (protection of confidential information, authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and rights of others), and was necessary in a democratic society. The national authorities' reasons were relevant and sufficient, and the penalty was proportionate given the circumstances, including the nature of the information published and the lack of overriding public interest.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 313
Parties
Applicant: Arnaud Bédat; Respondent: Swiss Confederation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
29 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights (echr) / Grand Chamber Judgment
Outcome
No violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression)
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Secrecy of Criminal Investigations, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Privacy, Proportionality of Sanctions
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Secrecy of Criminal Investigations Presumption of Innocence Right to Privacy Proportionality of Sanctions

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnaud Bédat

Applicant

Swiss Confederation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights (echr) / Grand Chamber Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conviction and fine for publishing information covered by the secrecy of criminal investigations violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued

Ratio Decidendi

The Grand Chamber held that the applicant's conviction and fine for publishing information covered by the secrecy of criminal investigations did not violate Article 10 of the Convention. The interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (protection of confidential information, authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and rights of others), and was necessary in a democratic society. The national authorities' reasons were relevant and sufficient, and the penalty was proportionate given the circumstances, including the nature of the information published and the lack of overriding public interest.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression)