BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT domestic courts’ balancing with respect to the second and any future publication was insufficient in relation to two points. First, the primary consideration of the Regional Court was concerned only with the editorial presentation of the first publication (see paragraphs 37-41 above). Second, and what is more, the Court of Appeal failed to engage in any balancing exercise of the competing interests in respect of any future publication. Without evaluating to what extent the publication of the image was capable of contributing to a public debate, it stated in a general reasoning that even an unpixelated coverage reflecting the actual circumstances of the police intervention without depicting the police officer in a negative way could not be considered to be portraying an aspect of contemporary society and thus would be unlawful (see paragraph 13 above). This could lead to the ban – unacceptable in such general terms irrespective of the public interest in the use of force by the police – of any future publication, without the consent of the persons concerned, of unedited images of police officers performing their duties (see paragraph 42 above). On these two points, the national courts’ decisions failed to conduct the necessary balancing exercise to justify the “necessity”, under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, of the restriction on the applicant company’s freedom of expression with respect to the second and any future publication of the unedited CCTV footage. The Court can therefore not accept that the interference was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of that Article. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 46. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 47. The applicant company did not claim any sum in respect of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage. The Court is therefore not called upon to make any award under these heads. B. Costs and expenses 48. The applicant company claimed 10,426.40 euros (EUR) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 9,594.60 for those incurred before the Court. Those sums did not include value added tax. 49. The Government submitted that those claims were excessive, arguing that the costs were based on a fee agreement and were considerably higher 13