Tokens: I
certainly
agree
with
the
Grand
Chamber
’s
determination
of
the
facts
of
the
case
.
It
correctly
established
that
there
had
been
an
interference
with
the
applicant
company
’s
right
to
freedom
of
expression
as
recognised
in
Article
10
of
the
Convention
(
in
this
case
,
the
right
to
publish
certain
information
)
as
a
result
of
court
sanctions
imposed
on
it
for
publishing
two
press
articles
concerning
the
arrest
and
sentencing
of
a
third
person
.
I
also
agree
with
the
Grand
Chamber
that
the
sanctions
were
provided
for
by
law
and
pursued
a
legitimate
end
,
namely
,
respect
for
the
rights
of
others
,
in
this
case
the
right
to
privacy
(
including
the
right
to
respect
for
one
’s
reputation
)
as
recognised
in
Article
8
of
the
Convention
.
I
also
agree
with
the
Grand
Chamber
’s
assertion
(
see
paragraph
76
of
the
judgment
)
that
the
Court
’s
task
was
to
determine
whether
those
sanctions
were
necessary
in
a
democratic
society
pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Article
10
§
2
of
the
Convention
.
Also
,
as
indicated
in
subsequent
paragraphs
of
the
Grand
Chamber
judgment
,
in
order
to
answer
this
question
this
Court
had
to
decide
whether
the
domestic
courts
had
adequately
weighed
the
conflicting
rights
and
interests
,
namely
,
the
right
to
freedom
of
expression
versus
the
right
to
privacy
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O