| dbo:abstract
|
- Barfod v. Denmark [1] (1989), was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Barfod in his accusation that the Danish government was not protecting his freedom of expression when writing an article suggesting that the judges who ruled in a specific case were incompetent to make fair and just decisions. The defendant was convicted on the basis that he wrote in the publication “Grønland Dansk” that two of the judges who, were deciding in a case regarding taxation of Danish nationals working on a base in Greenland, were biased in deciding the case. Mr. Barfod wrote, “Most of the Local Government’s members could ... afford the time to watch that the two Greenland lay judges - who are by the way both employed directly by the Local Government, as director of a museum and as consultant in urban housing affairs - did their duty, and this they did. The vote was two to one in favor of the Local Government and with such a bench of judges it does not require much imagination to guess who voted how." This accusation was seen as a potential for damage to their reputation therefore “the applicant was subsequently charged with defamation of character within the meaning of Article 71(1) of the Greenland Penal Code before the District Court of Narssaq” This case was then appealed and brought to the High Court for Eastern Denmark to then eventually be brought before the High Court of Greenland as it more formally fit the case. They once again did not side with Mr. Barfod. On October 16, 1987 the case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. In a 6 to 1 decision the court found that there was no violation to Mr. Barfod’s right to freedom of speech. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 14024 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:casenumber
| |
| dbp:casetype
| |
| dbp:chamber
|
- the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-02-22 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:fullname
| |
| dbp:judge
|
- Bernhard Gomard (en)
- Brian Walsh Brian Walsh (en)
- Denise Bindschedler-Robert (en)
- Feyyaz Gölcüklü (en)
- Franz Matscher (en)
- John Cremona (en)
|
| dbp:judgepresident
| |
| dbp:language
| |
| dbp:nationality
| |
| dbp:ruling
|
- Was not a violation of Amendment 10 (en)
|
| dbp:submitdate
|
- 0001-10-16 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:submityear
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dct:subject
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Barfod v. Denmark [1] (1989), was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Barfod in his accusation that the Danish government was not protecting his freedom of expression when writing an article suggesting that the judges who ruled in a specific case were incompetent to make fair and just decisions. The defendant was convicted on the basis that he wrote in the publication “Grønland Dansk” that two of the judges who, were deciding in a case regarding taxation of Danish nationals working on a base in Greenland, were biased in deciding the case. Mr. Barfod wrote, “Most of the Local Government’s members could ... afford the time to watch that the two Greenland lay judges - who are by the way both employed directly by the Local Government, as director of a museum and (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
