Avenue de l'Europe
| 2011
I finally had no other choice than to report my employer.
‘Interview with Brigitte Heinish’, published by ‘A Change of Direction’, 9 February 2017 - © Photo ansTageslicht.de
Brigitte Heinisch, a nurse in an old people’s home, blew the whistle on alleged staff shortages and low standards. She said that this situation was putting patients at risk and being covered up by her employer.
Mrs Heinisch was then fired. She challenged this in court, claiming that it had been unlawful to dismiss her for whistleblowing. The German courts rejected her claim, ruling that the sacking was lawful.
Mrs Heinisch’s whistleblowing had concerned an issue of significant public interest. Her dismissal could have had a serious chilling effect on others reporting shortcomings in institutional care. By upholding her dismissal, the German authorities had failed to protect her right to report wrongdoing in her place of work, which was also of great importance to society at large. This had violated her right to free speech.
The German government said that the case resulted from a mistaken application of the law in a single case, rather than a shortcoming in legal protections for whistleblowers in general.
As a result of the Strasbourg judgment, Mrs Heinisch’s employment dispute was reopened in the national courts. Her former agreed to pay her 90,000 euros in compensation.
David Norris suffered from anxiety attacks and depression after realising that any open expression of his homosexuality could lead to a criminal prosecution. The Strasbourg court ruled that the criminalisation of his sexuality breached his basic rights. In 1993, this led to the full legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults under Irish law.
Four Belgian journalists were targeted by the police in a huge search and seizure operation aimed at identifying the source of leaked government information. The Strasbourg court ruled that the operation had been unjustified and disproportionate. The case influenced new legislation to improve protections for journalists and their sources.
Senator Miguel Castells wrote an article claiming that the government was failing to investigate a series of murders. He was convicted of insulting the government and sentenced to a year in prison. The European court ruled that his right to free speech had been violated. The Spanish Constitutional Court then developed its case law to provide greater protection to free speech in Spain.
In 1988 the local newspaper Bladet Tromsø published claims by a government inspector alleging misconduct by certain seal hunters. The Norwegian courts found the newspaper liable for defamation, saying that it had relied too heavily on government reports. The Strasbourg court ruled that this violated the paper’s right to free speech – leading to reforms to protect freedom of expression.
Elina Goussev and Michael Marenk were protesting against the fur trade. Police searched their homes and seized campaign materials. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had breached their right to free speech, as the seizure had not been clearly justified by Finnish law. After the case had been submitted to the court, reforms were made to prevent arbitrary seizures.
Isaak Grinberg wrote an opinion article criticising a local governor. The governor sued Mr Grinberg for defamation, making him pay a fine. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mr Grinberg had been punished for giving a value judgment about a public figure. This violated his right to free speech. Mr Grinberg was awarded €1,120 in compensation.
Journalist William Goodwin was given leaked information about a company. The company wanted to sue the source of the leak - but Mr Goodwin refused to reveal their identity. The UK courts fined Mr Goodwin 5,000 pounds for contempt of court. The Strasbourg court ruled this had violated his right to receive and give out information.
Jens Jersild is a journalist. He was convicted for filming a news report in which extremists made racist remarks. The Strasbourg court found that convicting Mr Jersild for his work was disproportionate and violated his right to free speech. The case helped improve legal protections for media freedom in Denmark.
Market trader Ágoston Kmetty was allegedly beaten for 3 hours by officers in a police station. However, no charges were brought against any officers. The Strasbourg court held that the prosecutor had never properly investigated – refusing even to question the officers allegedly involved. Subsequent changes improved the remedies available to victims to ensure that crimes are properly investigated.
Ionel Dălban was a Romanian journalist and ran a local weekly magazine, Cronica Romaşcană. He was convicted and given a prison sentence for writing about an alleged fraud by public figures. The Strasbourg court ruled that the conviction had violated his right to freedom of expression. The case triggered reforms to free speech protections in Romania.
The authorities tapped the telephone of lawyer Hans Kopp and listened to confidential conversations. The Strasbourg court ruled that Swiss law had not properly limited the interception of confidential communications by the authorities. This violated Mr Kopp’s right to respect for privacy, leading to stronger legal protections.
During the 1970s and 1980s, various Austrians wanted to set up local TV or radio stations. However, Austrian law banned them from doing so, as it gave the Austrian Broadcasting Company a monopoly. The Strasbourg court ruled that the ban was disproportionate and violated the right to free speech. The judgment led to the opening up of broadcasting regulations.
Björk Eidsdottir is a journalist who claimed that the owner of a strip club was making his staff work as prostitutes. The issue was a matter of public interest, and her article was published in good faith and with due diligence. Nevertheless, the club owner sued Ms Eidsdottir for defamation and won. The Strasbourg court held that this had breached the journalist’s right to free speech.
Small political parties received virtually no television news coverage, and were banned from TV advertising. The Strasbourg court ruled that this left the Pensioner’s Party no way of transmitting its message on TV, violating its right to freedom speech. Reforms were made to political broadcasting rules, requiring the national broadcaster to include smaller parties in its TV coverage.
Sofija Tešić received a monthly pension equivalent to 170 euros. After she lost a defamation case, every month two-thirds of her pension was taken to pay off her debt – leaving her without money to pay for medication. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been disproportionate. The Serbian courts changed their case law to limit defamation awards, and enforcement proceedings were also...
Hervé Eon waved a satirical sign at President Sarkozy. He was then charged with offending the President of France, a crime dating from the 19th Century. Mr Eon was convicted and given a suspended fine. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had breached Mr Eon’s right to free speech. The offence of insulting the President of France was abolished later that year.
Germany
Ireland
Belgium
Spain
Norway
Finland
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
Denmark
Hungary
Romania
Switzerland
Austria
Iceland
Serbia
France