ACTIO POPULARIS LAW DEFINITION TV

Indeed, as the Court recalls (referring to its Dammann judgment), the preliminary gathering of information is an “inherent” part of the journalistic process.

This presupposes that the media can access information about public affairs, which it is incumbent on them to impart. The public thus has a right to receive information and ideas on matters of public interest and, moreover, the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas. Despite this cropping of the original principle, a powerful precedent was set and the principle still holds sway today.Ħ. The Court has only used the adverb on a smattering of occasions since, leaving the staple principle as the right to be informed tout court. However, the adverb “properly” has – by accident or design – fallen by the wayside. Ever since, this finding has been prominent in the Court’s canon of freedom of expression principles. In its ground-breaking Sunday Times judgment in 1979, the Court found that the public has the right to be “properly informed”. The Court declared – by a majority – the academics’ applications inadmissible. By contrast, the Court found that the academic applicants had not demonstrated how the impugned prohibition had affected them directly and thus lacked victim status. It held – unanimously – that her right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, had been violated.Ĥ. It found that the ban lacked legal basis and that it moreover prevented Fatma Banu Güven from gathering information she needed in order to perform her journalistic activities and contribute to public debate. In respect of the journalist, the Court followed its familiar line that the blanket ban, as a form of prior restraint on freedom of expression, merited careful scrutiny. The Court distinguished between the journalist and the academics, granting victim status to the former but not to the latter. The European Court of Human Rights subsequently considered the applicants’ claims to victim status under Article 34 (‘Individual applications’) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Turkish Constitutional Court dismissed their request on the grounds that they were not directly or personally affected by the ban and thus lacked victim status.ģ. All three applicants requested the Turkish courts to lift the ban, claiming it violated their right to freedom of expression.

ACTIO POPULARIS LAW DEFINITION TV

Fatma Banu Güven was a well-known journalist, political commentator and tv news presenter. Both regularly engage in academic and public discussions on freedom of expression issues. At the material time, Yaman Akdeniz was a professor of law at Bilgi University and director of the NGO, Cyber-Rights.Org Kerem Altıparmak was an assistant professor of law and director of the Centre for Human Rights at Ankara University. The blanket ban was challenged by three applicants: two academics and a journalist. At the centre of this case was an interim injunction by the Turkish courts banning the dissemination and publication (on any medium) of information on a parliamentary inquiry into allegations of corruption against four former ministers. After a brief recap of the facts of the case, each set of principles will, in turn, be analysed in relation to the case. Turkey is a set-back for its progressive development of three partly overlapping sets of freedom of expression principles: the public’s right to know, the right to participate effectively in public debate, and academic freedom. The European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in Akdeniz and others v.

Actio popularis law definition