EFFECTEN SPIEGEL AG v Germany - 38059/07 [2010] ECHR 784 (4 May 2010)

EFFECTEN SPIEGEL AG v Germany - 38059/07 [2010] ECHR 784 (4 May 2010)

The Court held that the applicant company failed to sufficiently verify the truth of the serious factual allegations before publication, relying solely on a single, potentially non-neutral source. The domestic courts' orders to refrain from disseminating the statements were proportionate, pursued a legitimate aim, and were necessary in a democratic society. There was no violation of Article 10.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 784
Parties
Applicant: Effecten Spiegel AG; Respondent: Germany
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
04 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Press Freedom, Defamation, Balancing of Rights, Article 10 ECHR
Human Rights Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Press Freedom Defamation Balancing of Rights Article 10 ECHR

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Effecten Spiegel AG

Applicant

Germany

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domestic courts' injunction against the applicant company for publishing certain statements violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant company failed to sufficiently verify the truth of the serious factual allegations before publication, relying solely on a single, potentially non-neutral source. The domestic courts' orders to refrain from disseminating the statements were proportionate, pursued a legitimate aim, and were necessary in a democratic society. There was no violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible

Orders

  • Application rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention