Ashby Donald and Others v. France - 36769/08 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 287 (10 January 2013)

Ashby Donald and Others v. France - 36769/08 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 287 (10 January 2013)

The Court found that the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others (the fashion designers' intellectual property), and that the domestic authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation in privileging property rights over freedom of expression. The penalties imposed were not disproportionate given the circumstances.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 287
Parties
Applicants: Ashby Donald and Others; Respondent: France
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
10 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Copyright Infringement, Margin of Appreciation
Human Rights Law Intellectual Property Law Freedom of Expression Copyright Infringement Margin of Appreciation

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

Parties

Ashby Donald and Others

Applicants

France

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of photographers for copyright infringement through online publication of fashion show photographs violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others (the fashion designers' intellectual property), and that the domestic authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation in privileging property rights over freedom of expression. The penalties imposed were not disproportionate given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)