Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NORDISK FILM & TV A\/S c. DANEMARK

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NORDISK FILM & TV A\/S v. DENMARK

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)

  Nordisk Film & TV A/S gegen Dänemark

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 40485/02

  The Court does not dispute that Article 10 of the Convention may be applicable in such a situation and that a compulsory hand over of research material may have a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 114, ECHR 2004-...).

• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 39378/15

  Kritik in Online-Forum: Menschengerichtshof stärkt Anonymität im Netz

  In Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII) the Court held that the decision of the Danish Supreme Court to compel the applicant company to hand over unedited footage which could not be regarded as sources of journalistic information nevertheless constituted an interference within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention.

  However, drawing on this Court's decision in Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII, the Supreme Court also made clear that the applicability of Article 10 in this context is limited to posts/information connected to the journalist's exercise of his or her function as a journalist.

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

  However, in Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII the Court held that the decision of the Danish Supreme Court to compel the applicant company to hand over unedited footage constituted an interference within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention despite the finding that the affected persons were not to be considered "anonymous sources of information" within the meaning of the case-law of the Court (paragraphs 59 and 61 above).

  It should be open to the judge or other authority to refuse to make a disclosure order or to make a limited or qualified order so as to protect sources from being revealed, whether or not they are specifically named in the withheld material, on the grounds that the communication of such material creates a serious risk of compromising the identity of journalist's sources (see, for example, Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, cited above).

• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 21272/12

  BECKER v. NORWAY

  That being said, the Court has held that protection afforded to journalists when it comes to their right to keep their sources confidential is "two-fold, relating not only to the journalist, but also and in particular to the source who volunteers to assist the press in informing the public about matters of public interest" (see Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII and, for example, Stichting Osade Blade (dec.), no. 8406/06, § 64, 27 May 2014).

  The relevant case-law used to support the disputed statement in paragraph 76 is Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII, and Stichting Osade Blade (dec.), no. 8406/06, § 64, 27 May 2014.

 
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 38224/03

  SANOMA UITGEVERS B.V. c. PAYS-BAS

  En particulier, il n'est pas interdit aux autorités internes de mettre en balance les intérêts servis par la poursuite des infractions et ceux servis par la protection des sources journalistiques ; parmi les éléments à prendre en compte à cet égard figurent la nature et la gravité des infractions en cause, la nature et le contenu précis des informations demandées, la disponibilité d'autres moyens d'obtenir les informations en question et les modalités selon lesquelles les autorités peuvent se procurer et utiliser les éléments concernés (comparer Nordisk Film & TV A/S c. Danemark (déc.), no 40485/02, CEDH 2005-XIII).

  Nordisk Film & TV A/S c. Danemark (déc.), n° 40485/02, CEDH 2005-XIII.

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 73469/10

  NAGLA v. LATVIA

  The Court has already found that Article 10 of the Convention does not only protect anonymous sources assisting the press to inform the public about matters of public interest (see Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII).
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 15054/07

  RESSIOT ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Par conséquent, les limitations apportées à la confidentialité des sources journalistiques appellent de la part de la Cour l'examen le plus scrupuleux (Roemen et Schmit, précité, § 46, Goodwin, précité, §§ 39-40 et mutatis mutandis Nordisk Film & TV A/S c. Danemark (déc.), no 40485/02, CEDH 2005-XIII), et une ingérence ne saurait se concilier avec l'article 10 de la Convention que si elle se justifie par un impératif prépondérant d'intérêt public (Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 38224/03, § 51, 14 septembre 2010).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 52808/09

  SERGEY SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

  Admittedly, a disclosure order or even a search and seizure order may be justified by an overriding public interest when such measures prove necessary for the investigation of very serious crimes (see, for instance, Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII, and contrast Jecker v. Switzerland, no. 35449/14, 6 October 2020).
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30881/09

  YLEISRADIO OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  The Court takes note of the careful balancing exercise made by the Supreme Court between the two basic conflicting rights, namely that of freedom of expression and the right to private life (see mutatis mutandis Nordisk Film & TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 40485/02, ECHR 2005-XIII).