Tokens: In
view
of
the
above
,
none
of
the
grounds
which
would
justify
a
review
by
this
Court
of
the
judgments
of
the
domestic
courts
are
present
in
this
case
.
The
domestic
courts
did
not
fail
to
balance
the
conflicting
interests
or
to
apply
the
relevant
criteria
in
doing
so
.
They
made
no
manifest
error
of
appreciation
;
nor
did
they
fail
to
consider
all
the
relevant
factors
.
Nevertheless
,
on
this
occasion
and
instead
of
concentrating
its
assessment
on
whether
the
domestic
courts
applied
the
above
-
mentioned
criteria
effectively
,
the
Grand
Chamber
has
chosen
to
re
-
examine
the
same
facts
that
were
brought
before
the
national
courts
.
And
this
was
done
in
spite
of
the
national
courts
having
extensively
assessed
the
circumstances
of
the
case
in
a
way
that
was
not
manifestly
unreasonable
,
and
with
the
added
benefit
of
their
direct
examination
of
the
context
in
which
the
events
occurred
.
Analysing
the
same
facts
and
using
the
same
criteria
and
same
balancing
approach
as
the
domestic
courts
,
the
Grand
Chamber
came
to
a
different
conclusion
,
giving
more
weight
to
the
protection
of
the
right
to
freedom
of
expression
than
to
the
protection
of
the
right
to
privacy
.
But
that
is
precisely
what
the
case
-
law
of
this
Court
has
established
is
not
our
task
,
that
is
,
to
set
ourselves
up
as
a
fourth
instance
to
repeat
anew
assessments
duly
performed
by
the
domestic
courts
.
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
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O