The Danish applicant was convicted for aiding and abetting the dissemination Jersild v Denmark (App no /89) ECHR 23 September (PDF, KB) . References: Times Oct, () 19 EHRR 1,  ECHR 33, /89, Links: Bailii, Bailii Ratio: A journalist was wrongly convicted. JERSILD v. DENMARK. AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No. / 89 by Jens Olaf JERSILD against Denmark. The European Commission of.
|Published (Last):||7 September 2011|
|PDF File Size:||20.95 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.11 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Member feedback about Joan Tate: It is based on a list of the hundred best books, as proposed by one hundred writers from fifty-four different countries, compiled and organized in by the Book Club.
Most Swedish instrumental folk music is dance music; the signature music and dance form within Swedish folk music is the polska.
In his application no. Hans Engell topic Hans Engell born 8 October is a Copenhagen born Danish former politician and journalist, who until 6 September was the editor-in-chief of the tabloid Ekstra Bladet, a position he had held for seven years.
In the applicant’s further submission, this explained why the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, when urging member States to ratify the UN Convention, had proposed that they add an interpretative statement to their instrument of ratification, which would, inter alia, stress that respect was also due for the rights laid down in the European Convention Resolution 68 30 adopted by the Ministers’ Deputies on 31 October Bernhardt, as well as the other members of the Chamber being ex officio members of the Grand Chamber, the names of the additional nine judges were drawn by lot by the President in the presence of the Registrar on 24 February Rule 51 para.
A V.denmarkk committed your first crime when you were A But is the threat of imprisonment something that really deters people from doing something illegal?
Member feedback about History of Sino-Russian relations: Therefore it is admittedly difficult to strike the right balance between the freedom of the press and the protection of others. In a letter of 7 March the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not wish to reply in writing.
This is a list of notable events in music that took place in the year Article 10 of the European Convention on Human He had himself cut the recording of the interview, lasting several hours, down to a few minutes containing the crude comments. The Supreme Court held that the news or information value of the feature was not such as to justify the dissemination of the offensive remarks see paragraph 18 above.
The applicant’s item had not been a direct report on a meeting. A Did he report it to the police? In the City Court counsel for the applicant and Mr Jensen called for their acquittal. Accordingly, the findings of the Danish courts cannot be considered as giving rise to a violation of Jersils 10 art.
Jersild v Denmark – Wikipedia
The statements, which would hardly have been punishable under Article b of the Penal Code had they not been made to a wide circle “videre kreds” of people, became clearly punishable as they were broadcast on television on the applicant’s v.venmark and with Mr Jensen’s approval.
Many Chinese people felt humiliated by China’s submission to these foreign interests, and this contributed to widespread hostility towards ejrsild emperor of China. Bokklubben World Library Norwegian: The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the two dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment . Provisions relating to the prohibition of racial discrimination and the prevention of propaganda of racist views and ideas are to be found in a number of international instruments, for example the United Nations Charter paragraph 2 of the Preamble, Articles 1 para.
The applicant claimed in respect of costs and expenses: G I had a little fight with the police together with some friends.
Jersild v Denmark, ECHR (1994)
Accordingly, so the City Court held, the applicant had himself taken the initiative of making the television programme and, further, he had been well aware in advance that discriminatory statements of a racist nature were likely to be made during the interview. G Yes, nothing really comes of it, I mean, there are no bad consequences, so probably that’s why. P Because they have nothing better to do.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination probably does not require the punishment of journalists responsible for a television spot of this kind.
In other words, Article 10 art. Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 18 February and the applicant’s memorial on 20 February.
He has worked there for several years, but many give up a lot sooner because of the tough environment. At the same time, the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably, depending among other things on the media in question. V.dehmark these circumstances and irrespective of the fact that the statements rightly have been found to jefsild in violation of Article bI question the advisability of finding the defendants guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of this provision.
Both the TV presenter’s introduction and the applicant’s conduct during the interviews clearly dissociated him from the persons interviewed, for example by describing them as members of “a group of extremist youths” who supported the Ku Klux Klan and by referring to the criminal records of some of them.
In the light of this article, the editors of the Sunday News Magazine decided to produce a documentary on the Greenjackets.
Jersild v Denmark
They essentially reiterated the submissions made before the City Court and, in addition, the applicant explained that, although he had suspected that the Greenjackets’ statements were punishable, he had refrained from omitting these from the programme, considering it crucial to show their actual attitude. Thursday, 27 December Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the item was broadcast as part of a serious Danish news programme and was intended for a well-informed audience see paragraph 9 above.
At the hearing on 20 April the Government invited the Court to hold that, as submitted in their memorial, there had been no violation of Article 10 art.