Index 99 
|
Dad (Pappa) Watch |
|
| Index 99
|
Dad (Pappa) Watch |
|
 |
Main Index 99
|
 |
Observer & Guardian V. the United Kingdom, Series A 216 (1991) The
eminent judge Lord Bridge appositely observed in the House of Lords in his dissenting
opinion: |
Back to Home Page Index Fathers
Manifesto News
|
Main Index Statement concerning the Site in relation to the # 390 case. Site Note Avisoppslagene i VG sist summer vedrørende bortføringen av barna. NB!
Det er blitt forandret bilete av fylkesrepresentanten til en skiløper som ikke har noe
med saken å gjere. Linkene er:
NEW Dads WEB SITE in Norway Check this out ?????????? WHO is the Honorable Senator ANNE COOLS and what she stands for. ?????????? Visit Danish Dad fighting to see his
daughter and Freedom of Speech on the Net. ! Visit his Site ! Bladet Tromsø V Norway European Court of Human Rights Judgment of 20 May 1999. 72. Having regard to the various factors limiting the likely harm to the individual seal hunters' reputation and to the situation as it presented itself to Bladet Tromsø at the relevant time, the Court considers that the paper could reasonably rely on the official Lindberg report, without being required to carry out its own research into the accuracy of the facts reported. It sees no reason to doubt that the newspaper acted in good faith in this respect. 73. On the facts (bold inserted) of the present case,
the Court cannot find that the crew members' undoubted interest in protecting their
reputation was sufficient to outweigh the vital public interest in ensuring an informed
public debate over a matter of local and national as well as international interest. In
short, the reasons relied on by the respondent State, although relevant, are not
sufficient to show that the interference complained of was "necessary in a democratic
society". Notwithstanding the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the Court
considers that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the
restrictions placed the applicants' right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim
pursued. Accordingly, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the
Convention. FOR THESE REASONS THE COURT 1. Holds by thirteen votes to four that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention; 2. Holds unanimously that the respondent Government are to pay the applicants, within three months, (a) for pecuniary damage, 323,342 (three hundred and twenty-three thousand, three hundred and forty-two) Norwegian kroner; (b) for costs and expenses, 370,199 (three hundred and seventy thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine) Norwegian kroner; (c) for additional interest, 65,000 (sixty five thousand) Norwegian kroner; 3. Holds unanimously that simple interest at an annual rate of 12% shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; 4. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 May 1999. Signed: Luzius Wildhaber Signed: Maud de Boer Buquicchio UK Law Site The Stonewall
Group
|
||
Counter:
