DELFI AS v. ESTONIA JUDGMENT
29
Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298; De Haes
and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1997-I; and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC],
no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III). In addition, the Court is mindful of the
fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of
exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria,
26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313, and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas,
cited above, § 59). The limits of permissible criticism are narrower in
relation to a private citizen than in relation to politicians or governments
(see, for example, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236;
Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1998-IV; and Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 62, ECHR 2001-I).
80. The Court reiterates that the right to protection of reputation is a
right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to
respect for private life (see Chauvy and Others, cited above, § 70; Pfeifer
v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; and Polanco Torres and
Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010). In order
for Article 8 to come into play, however, an attack on a person’s reputation
must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing
prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see
A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, and Axel Springer AG
v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012).
81. When examining whether there is a need for an interference with
freedom of expression in a democratic society in the interests of the
“protection of the reputation or rights of others”, the Court may be required
to ascertain whether the domestic authorities have struck a fair balance
when protecting two values guaranteed by the Convention which may come
into conflict with each other in certain cases, namely on the one hand
freedom of expression protected by Article 10, and on the other the right to
respect for private life enshrined in Article 8 (see Hachette Filipacchi
Associés v. France, no. 71111/01, § 43, 14 June 2007; MGN Limited v. the
United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 142, 18 January 2011; and Axel Springer
AG, cited above, § 84).
82. The Court has found that, as a matter of principle, the rights
guaranteed under Articles 8 and 10 deserve equal respect, and the outcome
of an application should not, in principle, vary according to whether it has
been lodged with the Court under Article 10 of the Convention by the
publisher of an offending article or under Article 8 of the Convention by the
person who has been the subject of that article. Accordingly, the margin of
appreciation should in principle be the same in both cases (see Axel
Springer AG, cited above, § 87, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2)
[GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 106, ECHR 2012, with further
references to the cases of Hachette Filipacchi Associés (ICI PARIS), cited
above, § 41; Timciuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 28999/03, § 144,