Case Summary and Outcome

In considering whether to uphold the German courts’ decisions to issue an injunction to suppress illegally collected footage of a company’s animal testing, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the domestic courts had struck an appropriate balance between Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the company’s right to protect its reputation, ultimately upholding the injunction.

Facts

Decision Overview

The ECtHR observed, on the one hand, that the domestic courts had carefully examined whether granting the injunction in question would violate Tierbefreier e.V.’s right to freedom of expression. In doing so, they had accepted that dissemination of the film footage was protected under the right to freedom of expression. Referring to the special reference to animal rights contained in the German Basic Law, the domestic courts had acknowledged that the material related to questions of public interest, which called for special protection under the right to freedom of expression.

On the other hand, the German courts had considered that further dissemination of the material by Tierbefreier e.V. would seriously violate the company’s rights. In this context, they took into account that the impugned footage had been produced by a former employee of the company, who had abused his professional status in order to produce film material secretly within that company’s private premises.

In light of the foregoing considerations and, in particular, of the careful examination of the case by the domestic courts, which had fully acknowledged the impact of the right to freedom of expression in debates on matters of public interest, the ECtHR found that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between Tierbefreier e.V.’s right to freedom of expression and the company’s interests in protecting its reputation.

Accordingly, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 10 of the ECHR and no violation of Article 14 of the ECHR, taken in conjunction with Article 10.