Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 17343/04

Relying on Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, the applicant newspaper argued that it could not be punished for disseminating statements made by third parties.

The Court reiterates that "punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person... would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so" (see Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 35; and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 17343/04

The Court reiterates that "punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person... would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so" (see Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 35; and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, § 62, ECHR 2001-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 17343/04

This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (for the recapitulation of the relevant principles in more detail, see Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, §§ 43-54, ECHR 2006-...; Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, §§ 22-27, 2 May 2006; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), with further references).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 17343/04

This power of appreciation is not, however, unlimited but goes hand in hand with European supervision by the Court, whose task it is to give a final ruling on whether a restriction is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (for the recapitulation of the relevant principles in more detail, see Giniewski v. France, no. 64016/00, §§ 43-54, ECHR 2006-...; Aydın Tatlav v. Turkey, no. 50692/99, §§ 22-27, 2 May 2006; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-XI; and Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, §§ 65-69, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), with further references).

Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 17343/04

The Court notes that the article was written by a journalist and reiterates that the pre-eminent role of the press in a democratic society is to impart ideas and opinions on political matters and on other matters of public interest (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, § 65).