Search results

complete results if you do your research only in one language. File:20200910-Axel Beelen-Overview of the decisions given by the BDPA.pdf Please find an overview

Germany (no. 2) (7/2/2012, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0207JUD004066008), Grand Chamber Axel Springer AG v. Germany (7/2/2012, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0207JUD003995408 ), judgment

consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application no. 39954/08, points 89-95; Hurbain v

as committing a crime. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights Axel Springer Ag v. Germany (2012, paragraph 83) also confirms the same line.

imposed (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés, cited above, § 93; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 90-95, 7 February 2012; and

consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application no. 39954/08, points 89-95; Hurbain v

consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application no. 39954/08, points 89-95; Hurbain v

consequences of the publication; and (vi) the severity of the measure imposed (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany, application no. 39954/08, points 89-95; Hurbain v

committing an offense. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Axel Springer Ag v. Germany (2012, paragraph 83) also confirms the same line.

publication and how well-known the person who is the subject of the news is (Axel Springer AG v. Germany, 7 February 2012, paragraphs 90–95 and Satakunta Markkinapörssi

discussion.” 60. The ECtHR jurisprudence is to similar effect. As stated in Axel Springer AG v Germany (Application No 39954/08) [2012] EMLR 15, para 79:

urgent reason, and is based on criteria that the ECtHR in the judgment 14 Axel Springer t. Germany has elaborated and then in its further case law as a

reputation, and used the criteria established by the ECtHR v. Germany and Axel Springer AG v. Germany. Freedom of (journalistic) expression also realizes

the opposing rights shall be given «equal respect», cf. EMD case 39954/08 Axel Springer AG v Germany 2012, premise 87. The Norwegian Data Protection Authority

. 40660/08 and 60641/08 , paras 109-110 ; Judgment of 7 February 2012 in Axel Springer AG v Germany, App . 39954/08 , para. 90) . According to the ECtHR

privacy (ie issues to be taken into account in the balancing of interests). Axel Springer v Germany mentions, as a first such criterion, the importance of

compare, for example, the judgment of the ECHR of February 7, 2012, 39954/08 [Axel Springer gg Germany] or the judgment of the ECJ of February 14, 2019, C-345/17