Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The public’s right to access archived material online took precedence over the right of convicted persons to be forgotten
In today’s Chamber judgment 1 in the case of M.L. and W.W. v. Germany (application nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
The case concerned the refusal by the Federal Court of Justice to issue an injunction prohibiting three different media from continuing to allow Internet users access to documentation concerning the applicants’ conviction for the murder of a famous actor and mentioning their names in full.
The Court shared the findings of the German Federal Court, which had reiterated that the media had the task of participating in the creation of democratic opinion, by making available to the public old news items that had been preserved in their archives.
The Court reiterated that the approach to covering a given subject was a matter of journalistic freedom and that Article 10 of the Convention left it to journalists to decide what details ought to be published, provided that these decisions corresponded to the profession’s ethical norms. The inclusion in a report of individualised information, such as the full name of the person in question, was an important aspect of the press’s work, especially when reporting on criminal proceedings which had attracted considerable attention that remained undiminished with the passage of time.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.