Tokens: 26
.
Secondly
,
the
information
published
by
the
applicants
was
not
intended
to
(
nor
did
it
actually
)
cause
any
harm.[13
]
In
weighing
Article
8
against
Article
10
,
the
Court
must
also
take
into
account
“
the
seriousness
of
the
intrusion
into
private
life
and
the
consequences
of
publication
of
the
photograph
for
the
person
concerned
”
(
see
Gurgenidze
v.
Georgia
,
no
.
71678/01
,
§
41
,
17
October
2006
)
.
At
the
same
time
,
the
interference
imposed
a
great
burden
and
actual
harm
upon
the
applicants
,
ultimately
forcing
them
into
bankruptcy
.
The
harm
to
the
general
public
,
in
contradistinction
to
the
harm
to
the
applicants
,
was
speculative
and
diffuse
.
Given
the
public
nature
of
the
data
and
the
aforementioned
dimensions
of
the
published
dataset
,
any
harm
directly
resulting
from
the
applicants
’
publication
was
relatively
inconsequential
as
regards
the
public
at
large
.
The
absence
of
any
individual
challenge
to
the
law
only
further
corroborates
the
absence
of
individualised
harm
at
stake
.
On
the
other
hand
,
it
is
a
major
burden
upon
journalists
to
prescribe
requirements
on
the
amount
of
data
they
can
collect
and
publish
,
and
on
the
form
in
which
they
must
publish
it
,
etc
.
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