INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
European Court of Human Rights: requiring a Swedish national to bring defamation proceedings in the UK courts following a transborder television broadcast is not reasonable.
In the Chamber judgment in the case of Arlewin v. Sweden (application no. 22302/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the Swedish courts’ decision to decline jurisdiction in defamation proceedings
arising out of the content of a transborder television programme service. The programme in question had been broadcast live in Sweden and had accused Mr Arlewin, the applicant, of organised crime in the media and advertising sectors. The Swedish courts subsequently declined jurisdiction to examine Mr Arlewin’s complaint, finding that a UK-based company, which had up-linked the programme to a satellite and transmitted it to viewers in Sweden, was responsible for its content.
The Court found in particular that, except for the technical detail that the broadcast had been routed via the UK, the programme and its broadcast were for all intents and purposes entirely Swedish. Moreover, the alleged harm to Mr Arlewin had occurred in Sweden. In those circumstances, the Swedish State had had the obligation under Article 6 of the European Convention to provide Mr Arlewin with an effective access to court. However, Mr Arlewin had been put in a situation in which he could not hold anyone responsible under Swedish law for his allegation of defamation.
Requiring him to take proceedings in the UK courts could not be said to have been a reasonable and practical alternative for him. In the Court’s view, the limitations on Mr Arlewin’s right of access to court had therefore been too far-reaching and could not, in his particular case, be considered proportionate.
(Source: Press Release of the EU Court of Human Rights no. 81/2016 – Author and ownership of the contents: EU Court of Human Rights).
The case concerned the Swedish courts’ decision to decline jurisdiction in defamation proceedings
arising out of the content of a transborder television programme service. The programme in question had been broadcast live in Sweden and had accused Mr Arlewin, the applicant, of organised crime in the media and advertising sectors. The Swedish courts subsequently declined jurisdiction to examine Mr Arlewin’s complaint, finding that a UK-based company, which had up-linked the programme to a satellite and transmitted it to viewers in Sweden, was responsible for its content.
The Court found in particular that, except for the technical detail that the broadcast had been routed via the UK, the programme and its broadcast were for all intents and purposes entirely Swedish. Moreover, the alleged harm to Mr Arlewin had occurred in Sweden. In those circumstances, the Swedish State had had the obligation under Article 6 of the European Convention to provide Mr Arlewin with an effective access to court. However, Mr Arlewin had been put in a situation in which he could not hold anyone responsible under Swedish law for his allegation of defamation.
Requiring him to take proceedings in the UK courts could not be said to have been a reasonable and practical alternative for him. In the Court’s view, the limitations on Mr Arlewin’s right of access to court had therefore been too far-reaching and could not, in his particular case, be considered proportionate.
(Source: Press Release of the EU Court of Human Rights no. 81/2016 – Author and ownership of the contents: EU Court of Human Rights).
