![]() ![]() On February 29, 2008, the Hamburg Regional Court upheld M.L. Finally, in a third set of proceedings, the applicants’ also brought proceedings against the daily newspaper Mannheimer Morgen to remove an article disclosing their full names and published on the website. ![]() Two of those articles included photographs, one showing the two applicants in the courtroom of the criminal court and another showing the first applicant with a prison officer, and a third showing the second applicant with W.S. In a second set of proceedings, the applicants’ also brought two claims against a weekly magazine Der Spiegel, which had published a series of articles between 1991 to 1993 disclosing applicants’ full names, giving a detailed account of the murder of W.S., his life, the criminal investigation and the evidence gathered by the prosecuting authorities, as well as referring to the failure of the applicants’ to have their case reopened. brought proceedings against the radio station in the Hamburg Regional Court, requesting the anonymization of the personal data included in the transcript of the radio station’s report from 2000. Notably, the transcript of this report remained available on the website of the radio station, archived in the section entitled “Older news items” under Kalenderblatt, until at least 2007. and W.W, and stated that an application they had made to the Constitutional Court to have their case reopened had failed. In 2000, a German radio station (Deutschlandradio) broadcasted a report regarding two individuals’ conviction for murdering a popular actor in 1991. were released on probation in August 2007 and January 2008 respectively. In all instances, their application was rejected. Subsequent to their conviction, the applicants’ lodged several applications for the reopening (Wiederaufnahme) of the proceedings, first in 1994 and then again in 20. The individuals were convicted for the 1991 murder of a very popular actor, W.S. and W.W., were half-brothers who were sentenced to life imprisonment on based on circumstantial evidence. The Court concluded that the public’s right to freedom of expression outweighed the right to privacy and thus, did not constitute an infringement of their right under article 8. The individuals later approached ECHR, which upheld the German Federal Court’s finding that there is an ongoing public interest in events that occurred in the past. ![]() The German Federal Court ruled that they were not entitled to the anonymization, on the ground that doing so infringed the right of the public to be informed of matters of public interest. In 2007, the individuals sought an anonymization of those media reports. In 2000, they had sought to have the case reopened but had been unsuccessful, subsequent to which local media had reported, on the occasion of the anniversary of the murder, on the story and the applicant’s attempt to have the case reopened at the time. and W.W., who were sentenced to life imprisonment on account of the murder of a popular German actor in 1991. ![]() The case concerned two German individuals, M.L. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) rejected an application concerning violation of the right to privacy and a demand for the right to be forgotten, with respect to a murder conviction under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |