Jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului: octombrie-decembrie 2015
The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: October-December 2015

Summary/Abstract: 1. Freedom of speech; Art. 10 of the Convention; Cengiz v. TurkeyThe Court also noted that YouTube represent an important platform of communication and that the blocking excludes access to information which could not be accessed by other means. In addition, the European Court has also estimated that YouTube is a platform that "allows the emergence of citizen journalism that allows disclosure ignored by traditional media."It found that, in this case, there was no legal provision allowing the courts in Ankara to impose a measure blocking the access entirely to YouTube, so the interference had not satisfied the legality required by the Convention and Reclam-Mantles not -They enjoyed sufficient protection, even if they were not directly affected by this, "concluded the judges in Strasbourg. As a result, Art. 10 of the Convention was violated.2. The right to private and family life; Art. 8 of the Convention;Ferrinho Brito v. PortugalGiven the lack of procedural guarantees and effective judicial review of the measure in question, the Court held that the Portuguese authorities have failed to strike a fair balance between the general interest and the need to protect the applicant's right to respect for his private life. There is therefore a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.3.Freedom of speech; Art. 10 of the Convention; Chamber judgment of December 3, 2015Prompt v. FranceThe Court noted that the applicant did not a criminal penalty was imposed, but was forced, jointly with the editor and publisher, to pay 9,000 euros damages. The courts ordered the publication of a judicial, taking care to impose this requirement only for reprints or new editions of the book. This has not led to the withdrawal of books already published and has not prevented the book to be republished, provided that the notice be included.The Court considered that the domestic courts, despite the discretion bounds ity of which have enjoyed had the right to consider that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.Accordingly, the court concluded that Europe has not been a violation of art. 10 of the Convention.

• Details
• Contents