Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=14.09.2010&Aktenzeichen=38224/03
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:05:57+00:00

Document:
37 - Vgl. insbesondere EGMR vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, § 83).
38 - Vgl. insbesondere EGMR vom 26. März 1987, Leander/Schweden (CE:ECHR:1987:0326JUD000924881, §§ 50 und 51), EGMR vom 26. Oktober 2000, Hassan und Tchaouch/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2000:1026JUD003098596, § 84), EGMR vom 4. Dezember 2008, S. und Marper/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2008:1204JUD003056204, § 95), EGMR vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, §§ 81 bis 83), EGMR vom 31. März 2016, Stoyanov u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2016:0331JUD005538810, §§ 124 bis 126).
43 - Vgl. insbesondere EGMR vom 14. September 2010, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V./Niederlande (CE:ECHR:2010:0914JUD003822403, § 83): "[Der Begriff "Gesetz" in den Art. 8 bis 11 EMRK umfasst] zugleich das "geschriebene Recht", das sowohl die Vorschriften unterhalb Gesetzesrang als auch die Rechtsakte einschließt, die eine berufsständische Vereinigung kraft Ermächtigung des Gesetzgebers im Rahmen ihrer autonomen Rechtsetzungsbefugnis erlässt, und das "ungeschriebene Recht".
87 - Vgl. u. a. EGMR, Urteil Sanoma Uitgevers gegen Niederlande vom 14. September 2010, Beschwerde Nr. 38224/03, §§ 81, 82.
However, that is not decisive (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 66, 14 September 2010).
Closer to the facts of the present case, the Court has consistently accepted, in a phrase repeated many times since its first use in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, that an order leading to the disclosure of a journalistic source may be compatible with Article 10 if - but only if - it is justified by an "overriding requirement in the public interest" (see Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 IV; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 91, 15 July 2003; Tillack v. Belgium, no. 20477/05, § 53, 27 November 2007; Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 65, 22 November 2007; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, § 59, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 51, 14 September 2010.
Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the manner of its exercise (see Hasan and Chaush, cited above, § 84; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010; and Güler and Ugur v. Turkey, nos. 31706/10 and 33088/10, § 48, 2 December 2014).
In order for the individual to be able to foresee the consequences of his or her conduct, the Court has held that "it would be contrary to the rule of law for the legal discretion granted to the executive to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power" (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, § 68, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82; see also, in the more recent case-law of the Grand Chamber, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 82, 14 September 2010, and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 230, ECHR 2015).
Apart from the above factors, the fairness of proceedings and the procedural guarantees afforded are factors which in some circumstances may have to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression (see Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 61, ECHR 2001 VIII; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005 II; Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 171 and 181, ECHR 2005 XIII; Saygili and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 83, 26 February 2009; Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, § 46, 20 October 2009; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 100, 14 September 2010; Cumhuriyet Vakfi and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013; and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 155, 23 April 2015).
The Court reiterates that for a law to pass the "prescribed by law" test in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, it must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate his conduct accordingly (see, for instance, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 81, 14 September 2010, and Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others, cited above, § 57).
In these circumstances, the Court need not ascertain whether the other requirements of the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention were complied with in the instant case - namely, whether the interference pursued one of the legitimate aims stated in that paragraph and whether it was necessary in a democratic society in pursuance of such an aim (see Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 101, 14 September 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 42, ECHR 1999-VIII).
Cette expression implique donc notamment que la législation interne doit user de termes assez clairs pour indiquer à tous de manière suffisante en quelles circonstances et sous quelles conditions elle habilite la puissance publique à recourir à des mesures affectant leurs droits protégés par la Convention (voir, par exemple, Gorzelik et autres c. Pologne [GC], no 44158/98, § 64, CEDH 2004-I, Maestri c. Italie [GC], no 39748/98, § 30, CEDH 2004-I, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 38224/03, § 81, 14 septembre 2010, Bayatyan c. Arménie [GC], no 23459/03, § 113, CEDH 2011, et Fernández Martínez c. Espagne [GC], no 56030/07, § 117, CEDH 2014 (extraits)).
En outre, quant au deuxième requérant, la Cour juge établi qu'il a réellement exposé des frais, quant à la procédure devant les juridictions internes et devant elle, dès lors qu'en sa qualité de client il a contracté l'obligation juridique de payer ses représentants en justice sur une base convenue (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. c. Pays-Bas, no 38224/03, § 110, 31 mars 2009, et Vallianatos et autres c. Grèce [GC], nos 29381/09 et 32684/09, § 103, CEDH 2013 (extraits)).
Such an approach might raise an issue in relation to the principle of protection of journalistic sources, one of the cornerstones of freedom of the press without which sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest (see Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-II; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-IV; Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 821/03, §§ 59 and 63, 15 December 2009; and Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 50, ECHR 2010-...).

References: § 83
 § 84
 § 95
 § 83
 Art. 8
 v. 
 § 66
 v. 
 § 39
 v. 
 § 46
 v. 
 § 91
 v. 
 § 53
 v. 
 § 65
 v. 
 § 59
 v. 
 § 51
 § 84
 v. 
 § 30
 v. 
 § 95
 v. 
 § 82
 v. 
 § 48
 v. 
 § 68
 v. 
 § 82
 v. 
 § 230
 v. 
 § 61
 v. 
 § 95
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 83
 v. 
 § 46
 v. 
 § 100
 v. 
 § 59
 v. 
 § 155
 § 2
 v. 
 § 81
 § 57
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 42
 § 64
 § 30
 § 81
 § 113
 § 117
 § 110
 § 103
 v. 
 § 39
 v. 
 § 46
 v. 
 v. 
 § 50