Freedom of Expression and Protection of Honour under the European Convention on Human Hights (Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit Und Ehrenschutz Nach Der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention)

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman Weiß
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

Freedom of expression and respect for private life in the context of the development of new information technologies: judicial practice of the ECHR and national courts

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-156
Author(s):  
Iliya Shablinsky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Partial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
New Information

This article examines and summarises judicial practice in cases related to the use of new information technologies. The study primarily focuses upon the decisions of Russian courts (general jurisdiction and arbitration) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Employing ECHR practice, the author also refers to numerous decisions by courts in Hungary and the United Kingdom. Cases related to the use of new information technologies can be distinguished between, and this article examines the judicial practice of three categories of cases: 1) blocking of internet resources; 2) employers’ control over employees’ electronic correspondence; 3) journalists’ use of hyperlinks in author’s texts and their responsibility of such placements. Within each category of cases, the rights of citizens can be seriously violated. The article highlights that in an era of rapid development of new information technologies, states, represented by special services and authorised state bodies, are making unprecedented efforts to ensure that they maintain at least partial control over the activities of new actors (bloggers, Internet media, Internet platforms, etc.). Similarly, courts often compromise with authorities when resolving such issues. Notably, national Russian courts did not consider parties’ interests, nor did they assess the need to block all sites with a particular IP address. They did not even follow the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation’s decision to apply the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights within the framework of the ECHR. The courts limited themselves to pointing out that Roskomnadzor acted within its power. Thus, the decisions of the national courts did not offer a mechanism for protecting rights. Within the norms regulating the new sphere of relations, there are often norms of a restrictive and prohibitive nature, and these norms are dominant in the Russian Federation. In this regard, there remains grounds for concern among lawyers involved in the protection of rights related to new information technologies.

scholarly journals GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ONE’S OWN INCRIMINATION IN ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.

scholarly journals Academic Freedom and Its Protection in the Law of European States

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-345
Author(s):  
Klaus D. Beiter ◽  
Terence Karran ◽  
Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Focusing on those countries that are members of the European Union, it may be noted that these countries are bound under international human rights agreements, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights, to safeguard academic freedom under provisions providing for the right to freedom of expression, the right to education, and respect for ‘the freedom indispensable for scientific research.’ unesco’s Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, a ‘soft-law’ document of 1997, concretises international human rights requirements to be complied with to make the protection of the right to academic freedom effective. Relying on a set of human rights indicators, the present article assesses the extent to which the constitutions, laws on higher education, and other relevant legislation of eu states implement the Recommendation’s criteria. The situation of academic freedom in practice will not be assessed here. The results for the various countries have been quantified and countries ranked in accordance with ‘their performance.’ The assessment demonstrates that, overall, the state of the protection of the right to academic freedom in the law of European states is one of ‘ill-health.’ Institutional autonomy is being misconstrued as exhausting the concept of academic freedom, self-governance in higher education institutions sacrificed for ‘executive-style’ management, and employment security abrogated to cater for ‘changing employment needs’ in higher education.

Allegro without Vivaldi: Trademark Protection, Freedom of Speech, and Constitutional Balancing

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-492
Author(s):  
Wojciech Sadurski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
Trademark Protection

Allegro – Trademark protection – Freedom of speech vs. intellectual property – Polish Constitution – European Convention on Human Rights – Balancing of competing values – Constitutionally permissible limits on freedom of expression – Comparison with case-law of United States Supreme Court – ‘Categorical’ approach vs. ‘balancing’ approach

4. Overriding Objective and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 32-47
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the sources of procedural law, the general principles relevant to civil procedure established by the overriding objective, the European Convention on Human Rights, and some rules on how the courts approach construing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). The CPR and practice directions (PDs) are the procedural rules governing civil proceedings. The most important rule is the ‘overriding objective’ of dealing with claims justly and at proportionate cost. The most important Convention rights in civil litigation are the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life, and the right to freedom of expression.

9. Freedom of Expression

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Clements
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Obscenity Law ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions; diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic and suggestions on further reading. This chapter moves on from the previous one to examine the freedom of expression. Under common law, freedom of speech is guaranteed unless the speaker breaks the law, but this is now reinforced by the right of free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The questions here deal with issues such as obscenity law and contempt of court; the Official Secrets Act; freedom of information; breach of confidence and whether there is a right of privacy in English law.

4. Overriding Objective and Human Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 32-47
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses the sources of procedural law, the general principles relevant to civil procedure established by the overriding objective, the European Convention on Human Rights, and some rules on how the courts approach construing the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). The CPR and practice directions (PDs) are the procedural rules governing civil proceedings. The most important rule is the ‘overriding objective’ of dealing with claims justly and at proportionate cost. The most important Convention rights in civil litigation are the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life, and the right to freedom of expression.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document