The case of Pentecane versus Finland was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 20 October 2015.

Why is the case important?

Judgment illustrates the obligations corresponding with the exercise of the freedom of expression, including responsible journalism, lawful behaviour and the responsibility to be recognisable as a journalist.

Principle facts. A demonstration had been planned by a contested group of organisers in Helsinki on 9 September 2006 against the ACM Summit.

The demonstration was planned to begin at 6 pm and end at 9 pm. The theme of the demonstration was opposition to the ACM Summit, the focus on human rights issues.

A separate area where the demonstration would take place had been set up specifically for the media by the Helsinki Police Department.

On the day of the demonstration, Mr Pentecane, a photographer and journalist, was requested by his employer to cover the demonstration.

Instead of using the press area, he decided to head into the demonstration.

From the beginning of the demonstration, 6 pm, violence had erupted where bottles, stones and charred filled with paint were thrown at the public and police officer.

At 6.30, the police considered that the demonstration had turned into a riot and the police repeatedly announced over loudspeakers that they were stopping the demonstration and that the crowd should leave the scene.

Hundreds of people then left voluntarily via the several exits.

At 9 pm, only 20 demonstrators, including the applicant, were still sitting on the ground surrounded by the police.

The applicant was shortly after arrested and the police kept the applicant in detention for 17.5 hours.

The applicant alleged that by being detained by riot police during a demonstration, his freedom of expression was violated and the state's negative obligation to not interfere with his freedom was not fulfilled.

The court's finding.

The grand chamber held by 13 votes to 4 that there had been no violation.

The court first noted that the officials indeed interfered with the applicant's freedom of expression and that this was prescribed by law as well as pursued a legitimate aim.

The case, therefore, relied on the question of necessity.

In this regard, the court stressed once again the importance of free press and the corresponding requirement, which demands a pressing social need for measure to be considered necessary.

On contrast, it further stated that the concept of responsible journalism also includes the lawfulness of the conduct of a journalist, considering illegal behavior to be a relevant aspect for its decision.

Regarding the specific case, the court first examined whether the applicant was in any way prevented from exercising his profession as a journalist, which it found was not the case, since he was able to take photos throughout the demonstration.

It further deemed the actions by the riot police to be reasonable under the given circumstances.

Forcing focusing on Mr. Pentecanine record found several reasons indicating he contributed to his distension.

Not only was he wearing dark gloves without any press badge attached, but he also took the risk of being apprehended by not obeying police orders, which all other journalists did.

Regarding the following detention, the court acknowledged that Mr. Pentecanine was among the first persons to be released without any restrictions to use the photographs he had taken.

Regarding the applicant's conviction, the court stated that in general the protection of Article 10 does not exempt journalists from the duty of responsible journalism and lawful behavior.

Taking into consideration that the domestic court convicted the applicant but imposed no sanctions as it deemed his act excusable and his conviction was not even entered in his criminal record, the court denied the risk that this could lead to chilling effects.

Overall, the court made clear that a journalistic profession does not free from the duty to obey the law and that especially during demonstrations, journalists are responsible to make themselves clearly recognizable as such.