YLEISRADIO OY and Others v Finland - 30881/09 [2011] ECHR 344 (8 February 2011)

YLEISRADIO OY and Others v Finland - 30881/09 [2011] ECHR 344 (8 February 2011)

The interference with applicants' freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary and proportionate. The Supreme Court's reasoning was relevant and sufficient, balancing freedom of expression and privacy. The sanctions imposed were not disproportionate given the sensitive nature of the information and the impact on victims.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 344
Parties
Applicant: YLEISRADIO OY; Applicant: Ismo Olavi Silvo; Applicant: Matti Herman Virtanen; Respondent: Finland
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility
Outcome
Application inadmissible
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Dissemination of Information Violating Personal Privacy, Secrecy Offence, Damages for Privacy Violation
Human Rights Media Law Criminal Law Privacy Law Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Dissemination of Information Violating Personal Privacy Secrecy Offence +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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YLEISRADIO OY

Applicant

Ismo Olavi Silvo

Applicant

Matti Herman Virtanen

Applicant

Finland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criminal and civil liability for dissemination of private information violated Article 10 (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the interference with freedom of expression was necessary and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct justified sanctions under domestic law

Ratio Decidendi

The interference with applicants' freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary and proportionate. The Supreme Court's reasoning was relevant and sufficient, balancing freedom of expression and privacy. The sanctions imposed were not disproportionate given the sensitive nature of the information and the impact on victims.

Court Disposition

Application inadmissible

Orders

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