Information Note on the Court’s case-law 53

May 2003

P4 Radio Hele Norge ASA v. Norway (dec.) - 76682/01

Decision 6.5.2003 [Section III]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom to impart information

Denial of application to broadcast murder trial live on radio: inadmissible

The applicant radio station applied for permission to broadcast a major murder trial that took place in Norway in 2001. The trial court denied the ap plication. This decision was upheld by the High Court, which ruled that the substance of the trial court’s decision was not open to appeal. It nonetheless expressed the view that the refusal was not inconsistent with the Convention. The applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed by the Appeals Selection Committee, which took the view that Article 10 of the Convention did not include a right to transmit proceedings in a criminal case. The trial went ahead in open court. In view of the great public and media interest, members of the press were accommodated nearby with live audio and video transmission from the courtroom.

Inadmissible under Article 10: The Court proceeded on the assumption that the impugned restriction on radio transmission constitut ed an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. It was prescribed by law, and pursued legitimate aims. As for the necessity of the restriction, the Court observed that there was no common ground among the Contracting States regardin g the live broadcast of legal proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, live broadcasting of a trial could generate additional pressure on the participants and even unduly influence the manner in which they behave and hence cause prejudice to the fair a dministration of justice. Since live broadcasting nevertheless entails a certain amount of journalistic filtering, it cannot substitute physical attendance by members of the public, one of the principal means of ensuring transparency and public scrutiny of the judiciary. Accordingly, having regard to the national authorities’ margin of appreciation, the presumption against transmission in national law did not in itself raise an issue of failure to comply with Article 10. Furthermore, the manner in which the national law was applied was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and could reasonably be considered proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The criminal proceedings were held in open court, to which members of the public had access. In view of the intense media interest, all members of the press were accommodated on a non-discriminatory basis nearby.

Inadmissible under Article 13: In view of its conclusion under Article 10, this part of the applicant’s claim was manifestly ill-founded. Even assuming that Article 13 applied, notwithstanding the limited scope of their jurisdiction, the appellate courts considered the applicant’s arguments based on Article 10 of the Convention.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes