The Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal has ruled in two almost identical cases on the conflict between the lottery legislation and the freedom of expression under the Press Act. The court considered the complex issue of whether the publication of odds reports from foreign gambling companies was protected by the freedom of expression or whether it could be subject to intervention by the Gaming Board.
The Stockholm District Court has recently issued a judgment in the much-publicized case involving an article published by the newspaper Expressen regarding a famous Swedish actor and his drinking habits. The amount of damages awarded was relatively low compared to the amount actually claimed; this shows that there is no indication that case law is changing in this area of law.
The chancellor of justice has prosecuted the editor of newspaper Expressen for defamation against a famous Swedish actor. It is the first case of public prosecution for defamation in 15 years. The actor also filed suit against the newspaper. The outcome of this case will be interesting with regards to the debate on the conflict between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy.
Television company TV4 sued pub chain O'Learys following the announcement that certain pubs would be showing the 2006 World Cup games without TV4's authorization. The district court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction and recommended that TV4 negotiate directly with the pubs, which are liable to charges per game shown. If no agreement is reached, TV4 may sue the bars for the unpaid amounts.
On February 23 2006 the government handed out new licences for digital terrestrial television broadcasting. The new channels will start broadcasting later this year. This represents another step in the process of digitalization of the terrestrial network: analogue broadcasts are to cease entirely on February 1 2008.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, even though parody must be considered as an independent work, it may present the original work in a manner that is insulting to the original author and thereby infringe his or her moral rights. Nevertheless, the court found that a feature aired by the radio channel P3 did not infringe the original author's moral rights.