Новости от 17 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
απόφαση του ΕΔΑΔ της 22ας Φεβρουαρίου 2018, στην υπόθεση των «Τηλεόραση εταιρείας» δορυφορική Άλφα «κατά της Ελλάδα (Άλφα ΔΟΡΥΦΟΡΙΚΗ Tileorasi Ανώνυμη Εταιρεία κατά. Ελλάδα)» (καταγγελία Ν 72562/10).
Το 2010, η αιτούσα εταιρεία υποβοηθήθηκε στην προετοιμασία της καταγγελίας. Στη συνέχεια, η καταγγελία κοινοποιήθηκε στην Ελλάδα.
Η καταγγελία σχετικά με την αίτηση στην αιτούσα εταιρεία για την επιβολή κυρώσεων για τη διαβίβαση βιντεοσκοπημένων εγγραφών εξετάστηκε με επιτυχία στην υπόθεση. Σε περίπτωση παραβίασης των απαιτήσεων του άρθρου. 10 της Σύμβασης για την Προάσπιση των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών για ένα μόνο επεισόδιο γεγονότων και δεν διαπίστωσε παραβίαση του άλλου.
Επί της περιπτώσεως
Η αιτούσα εταιρεία είναι ο ιδιοκτήτης του ελληνικού τηλεοπτικού καναλιού Alpha, το οποίο εκπέμπει δύο τηλεοπτικές εκπομπές, στις οποίες παρουσιάστηκαν τρεις ταινίες βίντεο από μια κρυφή κάμερα. Στο πρώτο βίντεο μπορείτε να δείτε πώς ο Αλέξανδρος, ο οποίος την εποχή εκείνη ήταν μέλος του ελληνικού Κοινοβουλίου και ο πρόεδρος της επιτροπής μεταξύ των κομμάτων για το ηλεκτρονικό τζόγο, είναι ένα κέντρο τυχερών παιχνιδιών και παίζουν σε δύο μηχανές. Το δεύτερο βίντεο δείχνει τη συνάντηση του A.S. με τους εκπροσώπους του ιδιοκτήτη της τηλεοπτικής εταιρείας, η οποία παρουσιάστηκε το πρώτο ρεκόρ. Η τρίτη εγγραφή βίντεο καταγράφηκε από τον A.S. με τον ιδιοκτήτη της τηλεοπτικής εταιρείας στο γραφείο του τελευταίου. Σε απάντηση σε αυτή την εκπομπή, το Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας για το ραδιόφωνο και την τηλεόραση διέταξε την εταιρεία προσφεύγουσα στα δικαστικά 100 000 ευρώ για κάθε εκπομπή ενός τηλεοπτικού σόου, κατά την οποία αποδεικνύεται είδαν το βίντεο και να υποβάλει έκθεση σχετικά με την απόφαση του Συμβουλίου εντός των επόμενων τριών ημερών, στο πλαίσιο της κύριας δελτίο ειδήσεων. Η απόφαση υποστηρίχθηκε από τον Υπουργό Τύπου και ΜΜΕ. Στη συνέχεια, το Ανώτατο Διοικητικό Δικαστήριο απέρριψε την αίτηση της αιτούσας εταιρείας για ακύρωση της απόφασης αυτής.
Κατά τη διάρκεια των εργασιών της Συνέλευσης, η προσφεύγουσα εταιρεία ισχυρίστηκε ότι η χρήση του Εθνικού Συμβουλίου για την επιβολή κυρώσεων τηλεόρασης και ραδιοφώνου παραβίασαν το δικαίωμά της στην ελευθερία της έκφρασης κατά παράβαση του άρθρου 10 της Σύμβασης.
ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ
Όσον αφορά τη συμμόρφωση με το άρθρο 10 της Σύμβασης. Εφαρμόζεται στην εταιρεία η προσφεύγουσα κυρώσεις για τη μετάδοση βίντεο είναι μια παρέμβαση στην ελευθερία της έκφρασης της εταιρείας, αλλά η παρέμβαση ήταν «προβλεπόμενη από τον νόμο» και υπηρέτησε τον θεμιτό σκοπό της προστασίας των δικαιωμάτων και τη φήμη των άλλων, κυρίως το δικαίωμα, AS να σεβαστεί την εικόνα, τα λόγια και τη φήμη του.
Κατά την αξιολόγηση αν η παρέμβαση ήταν «αναγκαία σε μια δημοκρατική κοινωνία», το Δικαστήριο εξέτασε την έκθεση σε γενικές γραμμές και συμφώνησε με την εκτίμηση των εθνικών αρχών ότι το θέμα της υποβολής εκθέσεων σχετικά με θέματα δημοσίου συμφέροντος. Το Συνέδριο σημείωσε ότι ο A.S. Είναι ένα πολύ γνωστό πολιτικό πρόσωπο και, αν και η κάλυψη ήταν αφιερωμένο στις ενέργειες του Αλεξάνδρου, δεν γενική συζήτηση σχετικά με το ηλεκτρονικό τζόγο, θα μπορούσε νομίμως να δείξει στην τηλεόραση.
(α) Το πρώτο βίντεο. Η πρώτη ηχογράφηση πραγματοποιήθηκε σε δημόσιο χώρο, όπου ο καθένας μπορούσε να τραβήξει φωτογραφίες ή να τραβήξει βίντεο. Κατά συνέπεια, οι εθνικές αρχές στη συλλογιστική τους έπρεπε να συμπεριλάβουν στην εκτίμησή τους τον παράγοντα που, εισερχόμενος στο κέντρο τυχερών παιχνιδιών, ο A.S. θα μπορούσε νομίμως να αναμένει ότι οι ενέργειές του θα υποβληθούν σε προσεκτική επίβλεψη και ακόμη θα καταγραφούν στην κάμερα, ειδικά δεδομένου ότι ο A.S. ήταν δημόσιο πρόσωπο. Έτσι, οι εγχώριες αρχές δεν απέδειξαν εύλογο ποσοστό αναλογικότητας μεταξύ των μέτρων που περιορίζουν το δικαίωμα της αιτούσας εταιρείας στην ελευθερία της έκφρασης και τον θεμιτό σκοπό.
β) Δεύτερο και τρίτο βίντεο. Σε αντίθεση με την κατάσταση με το πρώτο βίντεο του A.S. Είχε το δικαίωμα να αναμένουν σεβασμό της ιδιωτικής ζωής σε σχέση με το δεύτερο και το τρίτο βίντεο (όταν πήγε σε ιδιωτικό χώρο για να συζητήσουν τα αρχεία), καθώς και το γεγονός ότι οι διαπραγματεύσεις δεν θα πρέπει να καταγράφονται χωρίς τη ρητή συγκατάθεσή του.
Σύμφωνα με το Δικαστήριο, οι εθνικές αρχές κατέληξαν στο συμπέρασμα ότι η αιτούσα εταιρεία έχει προχωρήσει πέρα από τα όρια της υπεύθυνης δημοσιογραφίας, ήταν λογικό στο βαθμό που αφορά τη δεύτερη και την τρίτη ταινίες. Η διάκριση την παρούσα υπόθεση από «Haldimann και λοιποί κατά Ελβετίας» (Haldimann και άλλοι κατά. Ελβετία) (απόφαση της 24ης Φεβρουαρίου 2015, η Ν 21830/09 προσφυγή), το Δικαστήριο σημείωσε ότι η αιτούσα εταιρεία δεν αναλαμβάνει καμία ΕΙΔΟΥΣ ή επιχειρεί να παρέχει αποζημίωση για παρεμβολή στην ιδιωτική ζωή του A.S. Αντίθετα, οι πράξεις των δημοσιογράφων μας έκαναν να υποθέσουμε ότι ο Κώδικας Δημοσιογραφικής Δεοντολογίας και ο Ποινικός Κώδικας παραβιάστηκαν εκ προθέσεως. Το Δικαστήριο επέστησε επίσης την διάκριση μεταξύ της περίπτωσης «Joint-Stock Company» Radio Twist, AS «κατά τη Σλοβακία» (Radio Twist ASV Σλοβακία) (απόφαση της 19ης Δεκεμβρίου 2006, Ν 62202/00 καταγγελία) και το παρόν, επειδή είναι το προσωπικό οι αιτούσες εταιρίες, και όχι τρίτοι, ήταν υπεύθυνες για τη χρήση παράνομων μεθόδων, προκειμένου να αποσύρουν το γεγονός της A.S. στο παιχνίδι και την αντίδρασή του στο πρώτο βίντεο. Έτσι, οι λόγοι που έδωσαν οι ελληνικές αρχές ήταν «σχετικοί» και «επαρκείς» για να δικαιολογήσουν την παρέμβαση στη δεύτερη και στην τρίτη εγγραφή βίντεο.
ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ
Στην περίπτωση αυτή υπήρξε παραβίαση των απαιτήσεων του άρθρου 10 της Σύμβασης (σχετικά με το πρώτο βίντεο) (εγκρίθηκε ομόφωνα).
Η υπόθεση δεν παραβίασε τις απαιτήσεις του άρθρου 10 της Σύμβασης (όσον αφορά τη δεύτερη και την τρίτη βιντεοκασέτα) (υιοθετήθηκε ομόφωνα).
Το Δικαστήριο επίσης έκρινε ομόφωνα την παραβίαση του άρθρου 6 της Σύμβασης όσον αφορά τη διάρκεια της διαδικασίας ενώπιον του Ανώτατου Διοικητικού Δικαστηρίου.
ΑΠΟΖΗΜΙΩΣΗ
Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 41 της Σύμβασης, το Δικαστήριο χορήγησε στην προσφεύγουσα εταιρία ποσό 7000 ευρώ για μη χρηματική ζημία, 33.000 ευρώ για χρηματική ζημία, επισημαίνοντας ότι η προσφεύγουσα εταιρία κατέβαλε μόνο το ποσό των 100.000 ευρώ από το πρόστιμο 200.000 ευρώ.
Πηγή δημοσίευσης: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/865-tileorasi-etaireias-doryforiki-alfa-kata-tis-ellada .
Ordinance of the ECHR of 22 February 2018 on the case of the television company Alpha Doryforiki Tileorasi Anonymi Etairia v. Greece (application No. 72562/10).
In 2010, the applicant company was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Greece.
The complaint on the application to the applicant company of the sanction for the transmission of video recordings was successfully considered in the case. In the case of violation of the requirements of Art. 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for a single episode of events and found no violation of the other.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant company is the owner of the Greek television channel Alpha, which broadcasts two television shows in which three video tapes made by a hidden camera were shown. The first video shows how AS, who was at the time a member of the Greek Parliament and chairman of the inter-party committee on electronic gambling, enters the center of gambling and plays on two machines. The second video shows the meeting of A.S. with the representatives of the owner of the television company, which was shown the first record. The third video recording was recorded by A.S. with the owner of the television company in the office of the latter. In response to these broadcasts, the State Council on Television and Radio obliged the applicant company to pay EUR 100,000 for each broadcast of television shows during which the videos were shown and to report on the Council's decision within the next three days as part of the main news show. The decision was supported by the Minister for Press and Mass Media Affairs. Subsequently, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the application of the applicant company for the cancellation of this decision.
During the conventional proceedings, the applicant company claimed that the sanctions imposed by the State Television and Radio Broadcasting Council violated her right to freedom of expression in violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. The sanctions applied to the applicant company for the transmission of video recordings interfered with the freedom of the company to express its opinion, but the interference was "prescribed by law" and served as a legitimate aim to protect the rights and reputation of others, especially the law of A.S. to respect for his image, words and reputation.
Assessing whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the European Court examined the report as a whole and agreed with the assessment of the domestic authorities that the subject matter of the report concerned issues of public interest. The Court noted that A.S. was a well-known political figure and, although the report was devoted to the actions of AS, and not to the general discussion of the issue of electronic gambling, it could be legally shown on television.
(a) The first video. The first recording was made in a public place, where anyone could take photographs or shoot a video. Consequently, the domestic authorities in their reasoning had to include in their assessment the factor that, entering the gaming center, A.S. could legitimately expect that his actions will be subjected to careful supervision and even recorded on the camera, especially given that A.S. was a public person. Thus, the domestic authorities failed to establish a reasonable proportion of proportionality between the measures that limited the applicant company's right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim.
(b) Second and third video. Unlike the situation with the first video of A.S. was entitled to expect compliance with privacy for the second and third video recordings (when he went to private territory to discuss the recordings), as well as the fact that the negotiations will not be recorded without his express consent.
In the Court's view, the conclusion of the domestic authorities that the applicant company had gone beyond the bounds of responsible journalistic work was reasonable to the extent that it dealt with second and third videotapes. Distinguishing the present case from the Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland case (Judgment of February 24, 2015, complaint No. 21830/09), the Court noted that the applicant company had not taken any action, or attempts to provide compensation for interfering in the privacy of A.S. On the contrary, the actions of journalists actually made us assume that the Code of Journalistic Ethics and the Criminal Code were violated intentionally. The Court also made a distinction between the case of Radio Twist asv Slovakia (Judgment of 19 December 2006, complaint no. 62202/00) and this, because it was the employees the applicant companies, and not third parties, were responsible for using unlawful methods, in order to withdraw the fact of A.S. in gambling and his reaction to the first video. Thus, the reasons given by the Greek authorities were "relevant" and "sufficient" to justify the interference with the second and third video recordings.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (regarding the first video) (unanimously adopted).
The case did not violate the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (regarding the second and third videotapes) (unanimously adopted).
The Court also found unanimously a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.
COMPENSATION
In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 33,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, noting that the applicant company paid only EUR 100,000 from the fine of EUR 200,000.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/866-alpha-doryforiki-tileorasi-anonymi-etairia-v-greece .
Решението на ЕСПЧ от 01 февруари 2018 г. по делото Хаджиева срещу България (жалба № 45285/12).
През 2012 г. жалбоподателят е подпомогнат при подготовката на жалбата. Впоследствие жалбата е съобщена в България.
В случая се разглежда успешно жалба относно липсата на надзор над 14-годишно момиче, докато родителите й са били задържани. В случай на нарушение на изискванията на чл. 8 от Европейската конвенция за защита правата на човека и основните свободи, по отношение на събития от епизода и не намери нарушение по отношение на друг.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛСТВА ПО ДЕЛОТО
На 4 декември 2002 г. жалбоподателят, който по това време е на 14 години, е у дома, когато служители по вътрешните работи пристигат, за да задържат родителите си по искане на туркменските органи за екстрадиция. По това време родителите не са били вкъщи, те били задържани при завръщането си вкъщи и били заведени в място на задържане. Жалбоподателят остава у дома сам. Тя се срещна с родителите си на 17 декември 2002 г., когато бяха освободени под гаранция. Впоследствие, жалбоподателят е подал молба за обезщетение от страна на властите във връзка с напрежението и страданието, причинено от липсата й на организация от страна на органите на всяка грижа за нея по време на отсъствието на родителите си. Което се отхвърля жалбата на жалбоподателя, Апелативния съд установи, че дори ако кандидатът остана сам след ареста на родителите си, отговорността за това не може да бъде наложено на полицаи, прокурори или в съда, тъй като майка й в хода на съдебното заседание, което се проведе на 6 декември 2002 г., два дни след задържането, не каза, че някой трябва да се грижи за дъщеря си.
ПРОБЛЕМИ НА ЗАКОНА
По отношение на спазването на член 8 от Конвенцията.
а) Периодът между задържането и първото съдебно заседание. Настоящото положение очевидно представлява опасност за благополучието на жалбоподателя, тъй като по време на задържането на родителите си тя е на 14 години. В съответствие с разпоредбите на националното законодателство на българските власти, както изглежда, те са били необходими и след ареста на кандидата или родителите да предоставят на родителите с възможност за осигуряване на грижи за заявителя, или за разрешаване на ситуацията по своя собствена инициатива. Правителството на държавата-ответник също е длъжно да предостави на жалбоподателя необходимата помощ, подкрепа и услуги в дома й или в приемното семейство или в специализирана институция. Правителството не претендира, че някое от тези действия е било извършено от компетентните органи по време на досъдебното заседание, което се проведе два дни след задържането на родителите на жалбоподателя. Следователно, във връзка с посочения двудневен срок, властите не са изпълнили своето положително задължение да гарантират, че на жалбоподателката е предоставена закрила и грижи в отсъствието на нейните родители.
б) Периодът от датата на изслушването до освобождаването на родителите на жалбоподателя. Упълномощените публични органи нямат причина да подозират или подозират след съдебното заседание на 6 декември 2002 г., че жалбоподателката остава сама и никой не я е грижа в отсъствието на нейните родители. При тези обстоятелства задължението на властите да прехвърлят децата под стража на задържани лица, ако нямаше някой, който да ги пази, нямаше значение за приключването на изслушването. Родителите на жалбоподателя са образовани, професионално наети хора, които очевидно разполагат със средства да се грижат за дъщеря си. На никой от етапите на делото никой от родителите не предупреди властите, че тяхната дъщеря е останала сама вкъщи и не изразява загрижеността си за благополучието на дъщеря си в отсъствието им. Всъщност майка на жалбоподателя очевидно съобщи в съда, че някой се грижи за дъщеря си. Освен това интересите на родителите на жалбоподателя са представлявани от избрания от тях адвокат, който е участвал в съдебното производство за преразглеждане на случая на посочените лица. Адвокатът представлява интересите на родителите на жалбоподателя през целия период на задържането им и е съсед на мястото на пребиваване.
Следователно, при липсата на всякакви действия от страна на родителите на заявителя, или от тяхно име в съответната референция време на националните съдилища в протокола от съдебното заседание по въпроса за задържането на родителите на кандидата и Изводът е, че не органите на вътрешните работи, нито прокурорите, нито съдилищата не са би трябвало да са по-заинтересовани от положението с жалбоподателя, не представляват неадекватни действия в контекста на член 8 от Конвенцията.
РЕШЕНИЕ
В случай на нарушение на член 8 от Конвенцията (по отношение на срока на задържане на жалбоподателя и на родителите преди първото съдебно заседание) (приета с четири гласа "за", трима - "против").
В случая (с единодушие) не е прието нарушение на изискванията на член 8 от Конвенцията (по отношение на периода от датата на изслушването до освобождаването на родителите на жалбоподателя).
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
В изпълнение на член 41 от Конвенцията, Съдът присъди на жалбоподателя 3 600 евро (EUR) за неимуществени вреди.
Източник на публикация: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/867-khadzhieva-sreshtu-bulgariya .
The ECHR judgment of 01 February 2018 in the case of Hadjieva v. Bulgaria (application No. 45285/12).
In 2012, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated in Bulgaria.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered on the lack of supervision of a 14-year-old girl while her parents were in custody. In the case of violation of the requirements of Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to one episode of events and found no violation of the other.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On 4 December 2002 the applicant, who was 14 at that time, was at home when internal affairs officers arrived to detain her parents at the request of the Turkmen authorities for extradition. At that time, the parents were not at home, they were detained on their return home and taken to a place of detention. The applicant remained at home alone. She met with her parents on December 17, 2002, when they were released on bail. Subsequently, the applicant applied for compensation from the authorities in connection with the stress and suffering caused to her by the absence on the part of the authorities of the organization of any care for her for the period of her parents' absence. Having dismissed the applicant's complaint, the appellate court found that, even if the applicant remained alone after the detention of her parents, responsibility for this can not be attributed to employees of the internal affairs agencies, the prosecutor's office or the court, since her mother, in a hearing on 6 December 2002, two days after the detention, did not say that someone should take care of her daughter.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention.
(a) The period between detention and the first court hearing. The current situation clearly posed a danger to the applicant's well-being, since at the time of her parents' detention she was 14 years old. According to the provisions of domestic law, the Bulgarian authorities appear to have been obliged from the moment the applicant's parents were apprehended or to allow parents to look after the applicant, or to settle the situation on her own initiative. The Government of the respondent State were also required to provide the applicant with the necessary assistance, support and services at her home, or in the foster family or in a specialized institution. The Government did not claim that any of these actions were carried out by the competent authorities during the pre-trial hearing, which was held two days after the detention of the applicant's parents. Consequently, in relation to the said two-day period, the authorities failed to fulfill their positive obligation to ensure that the applicant was provided with protection and care during the absence of her parents.
(b) The period from the date of the hearing to the release of the applicant's parents. Authorized public authorities had no reason to suspect or suspect after the court session on December 6, 2002 that the applicant remained alone and no one cares for her in the absence of her parents. Under such circumstances, the obligation of the authorities to transfer the children of detained persons under guardianship, if there was no one to care for them, did not matter for the completion of the hearing. The applicant's parents were educated, professionally employed people who clearly had the means to take care of their daughter. At none of the stages of the case, none of the parents warned the authorities that their daughter was left alone at home, and did not express her concern about the well-being of her daughter in their absence. Indeed, the applicant's mother apparently reported in court that someone cares about her daughter. In addition, the interests of the applicant's parents were represented by the lawyer whom they had chosen, who participated in the judicial proceedings to review the case of the said persons. The lawyer represented the interests of the applicant's parents during the entire period of their detention and was their neighbor in the place of residence.
Consequently, in the absence of any action on the part of the applicant's parents or on their behalf at the time being referred to, the reference of the domestic courts to the record of the hearing on the detention of the applicant's parents and their conclusion that neither the internal affairs bodies, nor the prosecutor's offices, nor the courts should have been more interested in the situation with the applicant, did not constitute inadequate actions in the context of Article 8 of the Convention.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (regarding the period from the moment the applicant's parents were detained and until the first hearing) (adopted by four votes "for" with three "against").
No violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (regarding the period from the date of the hearing to the release of the applicant's parents) was accepted in the case (unanimously).
COMPENSATION
In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/868-hadjieva-v-bulgaria .