IRIS 2018-2 INTERNATIONAL Many

IRIS 2018-2 INTERNATIONAL FR-France COUNCIL OF EUROPE Television film infringe copyright of works by a Resis- European Court of Human Rights: Fuchsmann v. Ger- tance author.............................................13 Decree concerning the ban on advertising in children’s many .................................................. ...3 programmes on public TV................................14 European Court of Human Rights: Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark .............................................. ...4 Public audiovisual reform bill announced............... ..15 European Court of Human Rights: MAC TV s.r.o. v. Slo- CSA defends respect for women ....................... ..15 vakia .................................................. ...5 Parliamentary Assembly: Resolution on the status of GB-United Kingdom journalists in Europe ................................... ...6 ITV had not breached an individual’s privacy by identi- EUROPEAN UNION fying her partner who was a police suspect ............ ..16 Court of Justice of the European Union: Judgments on Claim of joint authorship rejected by the IPEC in the Flo- State aid and digital terrestrial television operators in rence Foster Jenkins case ................................17 Government designates regulator for age verification of Spain .................................................. ...6 European Commission: Member States referred to the online pornography ......................................18 Court of Justice of the European Union over collective IE-Ireland rights management Directive .......................... ...7 Public broadcaster pays damages over unverified tweet European Commission: Communications on intellectual during election debate...................................18 property rights enforcement ........................... ...8 IT-Italy NATIONAL New legislation on promotion of European and Italian AT-Austria works by audiovisual media service providers released Free Stream does not violate net neutrality ............ ...9 by the Italian Government ...............................19 Media policy in government programme ............... ...9 NL-Netherlands BG-Bulgaria Court of Appeals judgment on the rectification and re- moval of news programme episode ......................20 Amendments to the Radio and Television Act .......... ..10 Author of false Google reviews ordered to pay damages..21 CH-Switzerland New Code on YouTube advertising transparency ....... ..21 SSR’s new licence put into circulation....................11 PL-Poland CZ-Czech Republic Dispute over TVN fine intensifies ...................... ..22 Czech television starts transition to DVB-T2-Standard .. ..11 RO-Romania DE-Germany Federal Supreme Court rules on admissibility of Tagess- Governmental Aid for Cinematography ................ ..22 chau app .............................................. ..12 The PBS Act, back to the Parliament ................... ..23 ES-Spain TR-Turkey CAC adopts its first report on pluralism in current affairs Turkish Constitutional Court made a precedent decision debates programmes ....................................13 on a Bizim FM Radio station case ...................... ..24 Editorial Informations Documentation/Press Contact: Alison Hindhaugh Tel.: +33 (0)3 90 21 60 10 Publisher: E-mail: [email protected] European Audiovisual Observatory 76, allée de la Robertsau Translations: F-67000 STRASBOURG Sabine Bouajaja, European Audiovisual Observatory (co- Tel. : +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 00 Fax : +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 19 ordination) Paul Green Katherine Parsons Marco Polo E-mail: [email protected] www.obs.coe.int Sarl Nathalie Sturlèse Brigitte Auel Erwin Rohwer Sonja Comments and Contributions to: Schmidt Ulrike Welsch [email protected] Corrections: Executive Director: Sabine Bouajaja, European Audiovisual Observatory (co- Susanne Nikoltchev ordination) Sophie Valais et Francisco Javier Cabrera Editorial Board: Blázquez Aurélie Courtinat Barbara Grokenberger Jackie Maja Cappello, Editor Francisco Javier Cabrera Blázquez, McLelland James Drake Sophie Valais, Deputy Editors (European Audiovisual Distribution: Observatory) Nathalie Fundone, European Audiovisual Observatory Silvia Grundmann, Media Division of the Directorate of Tel.: Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg (France) +33 (0)3 90 21 60 06 Mark D. Cole, Institute of European Media Law (EMR), E-mail: [email protected] Saarbrücken (Germany) Bernhard Hofstötter, DG Connect Web Design: of the European Commission, Brussels (Belgium) Tarlach Coordination: Cyril Chaboisseau, European Audiovisual McGonagle, Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the Observatory Development and Integration: www.logidee.com University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) Andrei Richter, Layout: www.acom-europe.com and www.logidee.com Media Academy Bratislava (Slovakia) ISSN 2078-6158 Council to the Editorial Board: 2018 European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg Amélie Blocman, Victoires Éditions (France) ised crime were allegations grave enough for Article 8 INTERNATIONAL to come into play. The Court then considered that the case required an examination of whether a fair bal- ance had been struck between the applicant’s right to the protection of his private life under Article 8 and COUNCIL OF EUROPE the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The relevant criteria within the context of balancing these competing rights were: the contribu- European Court of Human Rights: Fuchs- tion to a debate of public interest; the degree to which mann v. Germany the person affected was well-known; the subject of the news report; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the method of obtaining the information and its veracity; and the content, form and consequences On 19 October 2017, the European Court of Human of the publication. Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in the case of Fuchsmann v. Germany, which concerned the online version of a New York Times article accessible in Germany. The applicant in the case is an internationally active entrepreneur in the media sector, and holds the position of Vice-President of the World Jew- ish Congress. In June 2001, the New York Times pub- Firstly, the Court agreed that the article had con- lished an article about an investigation into corrup- tributed to a debate of public interest and that there tion against R.L. The article was entitled “[L] Media had been a public interest in the alleged involvement Company Faces a Federal Inquiry”, and included the of the applicant and mentioning him by name. The statements that the applicant had “ties to Russian or- Court also held that a public interest also existed in ganized crime, according to reports by the FBI and Eu- the publication of the article in the online archive ropean law enforcement agencies”, and a “1994 FBI of the newspaper, and noted “the substantial contri- report on Russian organized crime in the United States bution made by Internet archives to preserving and described [the applicant] as a gold smuggler and em- making available news and information”. Secondly, bezzler, whose company in Germany was part of an the Court held that the Court of Appeal’s assessment international organized crime network. He is barred that there was a certain interest in the applicant as a from entering the United States.” German businessman internationally active in the me- In July 2002, the applicant sought injunctions against dia sector, was in compliance with the ECtHR’s case certain parts of the article, including the statements law. Thirdly, the Court reiterated that that the press above. Ultimately, in 2011, the Düsseldorf Court of should normally be entitled, when contributing to pub- Appeal granted the injunction in so far as the article lic debate on matters of legitimate concern, to rely on stated that the applicant had been banned from en- the contents of official reports without having to un- tering the US. As regards the rest of the statements, dertake independent research. The Court observed the Court of Appeal held that there was a great infor- that the main source for the statements regarding the mational interest on the part of the public in reporting applicant was an internal FBI report and not an offi- that the applicant, as a German businessman interna- cially published report. The Court agreed that there tionally active in the media sector, was suspected by was a sufficient factual basis for the remaining state- the secret service of being involved in gold smuggling, ments at issue. Fourthly, the Court agreed with the embezzlement and organised crime. This assessment Court of Appeal that the article was free from polem- was not changed by the fact that the criminal offences ical statements and insinuations, and made it suffi- mentioned had occurred more than sixteen years pre- ciently clear that only insights from reports by the viously. The court furthermore considered that the FBI and other law-enforcement authorities were being reporting made it sufficiently clear that only insights reported. Moreover, the Court found that the infor- from FBI reports and the law-enforcement authorities mation disseminated had mainly concerned the appli- were being reported. The court concluded that the cant’s professional life and had not divulged any inti- defendant had complied with the required journalis- mate private details. The ECtHR also noted that the tic duty of care and that the reporting had relied on Court of Appeal found that the online article was ac- sources and background information, which the

Load more