Journalist opgepakt tijdens demonstratie voor het weigeren van politiebevelen
EHRM 20 oktober 2015, IEFbe 1558; Application No. 11882/10 (Pentikäinen tegen Finland) - persbericht
Mediarecht. Geen inbreuk op art. 10 EVRM. De zaak ging over de aanhouding van een media-fotograaf tijdens een demonstratie en zijn veroordeling voor ongehoorzaamheid aan de politie. De Kamer constateerde dat de Finse autoriteiten hun beslissingen op relevante en voldoende redenen had gebaseerd en dat zij een billijk evenwicht had gezocht tussen de concurrerende belangen. Het was de media niet opzettelijk moeilijk gemaakt. Mr. Pentikäinen was niet verhinderd zijn werk te doen als journalist tijdens of na de demonstratie. In het bijzonder was hij niet aangehouden voor zijn werk als journalist als zodanig, maar voor de weigering om bevelen van de politie op te volgen de plaats van de demonstatie te verlaten. Zijn apparatuur was niet in beslag genomen, en hij is niet bestraft.
6. Overall conclusion. 114. Having regard to all the foregoing factors and taking into account the margin of appreciation afforded to the State, the Court concludes that, in the present case, the domestic authorities based their decisions on relevant and sufficient reasons and struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. It clearly transpires from the case file that the authorities did not deliberately prevent or hinder the media from covering the demonstration in an attempt to conceal from the public gaze the actions of the police with respect to the demonstration in general or to individual protesters (see paragraph 89 in fine). Indeed, the applicant was not prevented from carrying out his work as a journalist either during or after the demonstration. The Court therefore concludes that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression can be said to have been “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court would stress that this conclusion must be seen on the basis of the particular circumstances of the instant case, due regard being had to the need to avoid any impairment of the media’s “watch-dog” role (see paragraph 89 above).
115. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SPANO JOINED BY JUDGES SPIELMANN, LEMMENS AND DEDOV
"(-) 14. Today’s Grand Chamber judgment is a missed opportunity for the Court to reinforce, in line with its consistent case-law, the special nature and importance of the press in providing transparency and accountability for the exercise of governmental power by upholding the rights of journalists to observe public demonstrations or other Article 11 activities effectively and unimpeded, so long as they do not take a direct and active part in hostilities. Recent events in many European countries demonstrate, more than ever, the necessity of safeguarding the fundamental role of the press in obtaining and disseminating to the public information on all aspects of governmental activity. That is, after all, one of the crucial elements of the democratic ideal protected by the European Convention on Human Rights."
