»Freedom within the press« and »Tendency protection« under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Kloepfer, M. (1997). »Freedom within the press« and »Tendency protection« under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (This publication is an English summary of »'Innere Pressefreiheit' und Tendenzschutz im Lichte des Art. 10 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten« published in 1996 in »Schriften zum Europäischen Recht«, vol. 27). Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-49196-4
Kloepfer, Michael. »Freedom within the press« and »Tendency protection« under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: (This publication is an English summary of »'Innere Pressefreiheit' und Tendenzschutz im Lichte des Art. 10 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten« published in 1996 in »Schriften zum Europäischen Recht«, vol. 27). Duncker & Humblot, 1997. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-49196-4
Kloepfer, M (1997): »Freedom within the press« and »Tendency protection« under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: (This publication is an English summary of »'Innere Pressefreiheit' und Tendenzschutz im Lichte des Art. 10 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten« published in 1996 in »Schriften zum Europäischen Recht«, vol. 27), Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-49196-4
Format
»Freedom within the press« and »Tendency protection« under Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(This publication is an English summary of »'Innere Pressefreiheit' und Tendenzschutz im Lichte des Art. 10 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten« published in 1996 in »Schriften zum Europäischen Recht«, vol. 27)
(1997)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Prof. em. Dr. Michael Kloepfer war von 1974–1976 Professor an der Freien Universität Berlin, von 1976–1992 Professor an der Universität Trier, dort Direktor des Instituts für Umwelt- und Technikrecht. Von 1992–2011 war er Professor für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht, Europarecht, Umweltrecht, Finanzrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin und Direktor am Walter Hallstein-Institut für Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Seit 2011 ist er Emeritus. Von 1992–1998 war er Stellvertretender Vorsitzender der unabhängigen Sachverständigenkommission »Umweltgesetzbuch« und von 1999–2001 und 2005–2007 Vorsitzender der Berliner Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft e.V. Von 2008–2016 war er Mitglied der Schutzkommission beim Bundesministerium des Innern. Er absolvierte zahlreiche Forschungsaufenthalte im Ausland (u.a. Kobe/Japan; Lausanne/Schweiz; Stanford/USA). Er ist zudem Präsident der Forschungszentren Umweltrecht (FZU), Technikrecht (FZT), Katastrophenrecht (FZK) sowie des Instituts für Gesetzgebung und Verfassung (IGV) und ist seit 2011 Leiter des Forschungszentrums Recht an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Seit 2017 ist er als Rechtsanwalt bei der Kanzlei Köhler & Klett tätig.Abstract
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the freedom of expression and information and, therewith, also the freedom of the press on an European level. Recently there have been, especially at the level of the EC and the Council of Europe, calls to legally entrench a »freedom within the press« («Innere Pressefreiheit«). The aim is to strengthen and formalise the editorial freedom enjoyed by editors and journalists. A conflict exists between these efforts and the protection that owners enjoy in determining what their enterprises publish and what political viewpoints are expressed. A particular manifestation of this problem is the »tendency protection« («Tendenzschutz«) available to owners of press and media enterprises. According to this the right of co-determination normally available to employees in the Works Council does not apply to employees in press and media enterprises. The present volume examines the question whether the efforts to entrench a freedom within the press are consistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this regard special attention is paid to the guarantees and effects of the European media freedom in relation to companies.This publication is an English summary of »'Innere Pressefreiheit' und Tendenzschutz im Lichte des Art. 10 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten« published in 1996 in »Schriften zum europäischen Recht«, vol. 27.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preface | 5 | ||
| Content | 7 | ||
| Abbreviations | 10 | ||
| I. Introduction | 13 | ||
| II. “Freedom within the media” and Art. 10 ECHR | 16 | ||
| 1. An overview of the material area of protection granted by Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: freedom of the press as a part of the freedom of expression and information | 16 | ||
| a) Introduction | 16 | ||
| b) Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression | 17 | ||
| c) Content of the freedom of expression | 19 | ||
| d) Freedom of information and freedom to procure information | 21 | ||
| e) Freedom of the press | 23 | ||
| 2. An overview of the personal area of protection granted by Art. 10 ECHR | 25 | ||
| a) Bearers of human rights | 25 | ||
| b) Obligors of the human right: “Effect on third parties” (“Drittwirkung”) and institutional guarantee? | 27 | ||
| aa) Introduction | 27 | ||
| bb) Practice of the Convention organs | 29 | ||
| cc) Effect on third parties (“Drittwirkung”) and protective duties | 30 | ||
| (1) Preliminary considerations | 30 | ||
| (2) A general protective duty of the state resulting from Art. 1 ECHR? | 31 | ||
| (3) Protective duties as a matter of attribution | 32 | ||
| (4) Protective duties of the state on the level of the European Community? | 34 | ||
| (5) Interim result | 35 | ||
| dd) Institutionalisation of the freedom of the press according to Art. 10 ECHR? | 35 | ||
| 3. Formal and material limitations of Art. 10 Para. 2 ECHR | 39 | ||
| a) General remarks on the dogmatics of limitations | 39 | ||
| b) The examination of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung) within the framework of Art. 10 Para. 2 ECHR in comparison to German law: suitability and adequacy as well as “margin of appreciation” as a system of differentiated protective levels | 42 | ||
| aa) Introduction | 42 | ||
| bb) Legal bases of interference | 44 | ||
| cc) Aim of interference | 45 | ||
| dd) The necessity of interference in a democratic society | 46 | ||
| (1) Pressing social need | 46 | ||
| (2) On the extent of the examination of proportionality (“Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung”) | 48 | ||
| (3) On the concept of the “margin of appreciation” | 50 | ||
| (4) Concretisation of the “margin of appreciation” | 54 | ||
| (5) On the significance of the margin of appreciation for independent acts of the organs of the European Council and the European Community | 57 | ||
| 4. Art. 10 ECHR as a yardstick for the “freedom within the press” | 58 | ||
| a) Personal area of protection: Art. 10 ECHR as a defensive right of the publisher | 58 | ||
| b) Material area of protection: protection (also) of the functionality of the publishing unit | 59 | ||
| c) Interference with the freedom of the press of the publisher by laying down “freedom within the press” | 60 | ||
| aa) Introduction, questions of competence | 60 | ||
| bb) Interference by Decisions of the European Parliament and by the Directive on European Works Councils | 62 | ||
| cc) Interference by the acts of the European Council | 64 | ||
| d) Justification of interference according to Art. 10 Para. 2 ECHR | 65 | ||
| aa) Introduction | 65 | ||
| bb) Catalogue of aims | 65 | ||
| cc) Prevention of disorder | 66 | ||
| (1) General character of the aim of protection | 66 | ||
| (2) The case Engel et al. | 67 | ||
| (3) Protection of democratic institutions and structures? | 67 | ||
| (4) The Case Autronic | 68 | ||
| (5) Intermediate result | 69 | ||
| dd) Reservation of the rights of others | 69 | ||
| (1) The general significance of this aim | 69 | ||
| (2) Exclusion of objectively rendered value concepts | 70 | ||
| (3) The case Groppera et al. | 71 | ||
| (4) Protection of economic and publishing competition? | 71 | ||
| (5) Rights of the editors as “rights of others” legitimating interference? | 73 | ||
| ee) Legitimacy of the “freedom within the press” in a democratic society? | 76 | ||
| e) Summary and prospects | 79 | ||
| aa) Summary | 79 | ||
| bb) Prospects | 80 | ||
| III. Tendency protection (“Tendenzschutz”) and Art. 10 ECHR | 82 | ||
| 1. Interference with Art. 10 ECHR due to insufficient tendency protection? | 82 | ||
| 2. Art. 10 ECHR and the granting of tendency protection | 83 | ||
| IV. The prohibition of discrimination according to Art. 14 ECHR and property guarantee by Art. 1 of the 1st Protocol | 86 | ||
| 1. “Freedom within the press” and the prohibition of discrimination according to Art. 14 ECHR | 86 | ||
| a) The general content of the prohibition of discrimination | 86 | ||
| b) Application of the measure to the “freedom within the press” | 89 | ||
| 2. “Freedom within the press” and guarantee of property granted by human rights according to Art. 1 Protocol 1 | 90 | ||
| V. Summary in theses | 93 | ||
| Literature | 98 |