Y v. SWITZERLAND - 22998/13 (Judgment : No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)) French Text [2017] ECHR 527 (06 June 2017)

Y v. SWITZERLAND - 22998/13 (Judgment : No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)) French Text [2017] ECHR 527 (06 June 2017)

The Court found that while the applicant's conviction constituted an interference with his freedom of expression, the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (protecting the rights of others and the authority of the judiciary), and was necessary in a democratic society. The article contained unnecessary and sensationalist details about minors and victims, did not contribute meaningfully to a public debate, and risked harming the privacy of vulnerable individuals and the integrity of the proceedings. The sanction was proportionate. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 10.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 527
Parties
Applicant: Y; Respondent: Confédération suisse
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment
Outcome
No violation of Article 10 ECHR
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Protection of Private Life, Journalistic Duties, Presumption of Innocence, Protection of Minors, Publication of Confidential Information
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Protection of Private Life Journalistic Duties Presumption of Innocence Protection of Minors +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y

Applicant

Confédération suisse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's criminal conviction for publishing information covered by investigative secrecy violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while the applicant's conviction constituted an interference with his freedom of expression, the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (protecting the rights of others and the authority of the judiciary), and was necessary in a democratic society. The article contained unnecessary and sensationalist details about minors and victims, did not contribute meaningfully to a public debate, and risked harming the privacy of vulnerable individuals and the integrity of the proceedings. The sanction was proportionate. Therefore, there was no violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 10 ECHR