Article 10

Lawyer sentenced for defamation for writting an open letter on a subject of public interest violated his freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Tête v. Frabce 26.03.2020 (no. 59636/16) see here  SUMMARY In this case the applicant complained about his conviction for malicious falsehood on account of an open letter which he had written to the President of the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF), in which he accused the Olympique Lyonnais Group (“the OL Group”) and its […]

read more

Journalist’s condemnation for gloryfying violence and the kidnappers did not violated the freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Altıntaş v. Turkey 10.03.2020 (no.  50495/08) see here  SUMMARY The case concerned a judicial fine imposed on Mr Altıntaş for an article published in 2007 in his periodical Tokat Demokrat, describing the perpetrators of the “Kızıldere events”, among others as “idols of the youth”. The events in question took place in March 1972, when […]

read more

Freedom of expression: a judgment recapitulating case-law on the offence of propaganda in favour of terrorist organisations

JUDGMENT Özer v. Turkey 11.02.2020 (no. 3) (no.  69270/12) see here  SUMMARY The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against Mr Özer over an article published in his magazine. Mr Özer was prosecuted and convicted of the criminal offence of providing propaganda for a terrorist organisation, under section 7(2) of Law No. 3713. The Court reiterated […]

read more

Publisher’s criminal conviction for hate speech did not violate freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Atamanchuk v. Russia  11.02.2020 (no. 4493/11) see here SUMMARY The case concerned a businessman’s conviction for inciting hatred and enmity following statements about non-Russians in an article published in a local newspaper. The Court found in particular that the applicant’s sweeping remarks had not contributed to any public debate and agreed with the national […]

read more

Conviction of journalist and publishing director for publishing an article on a journalist’s assassination violates the freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Magosso and Brindani v. Italy 16.01.2020 (no. 59347/11)  see here SUMMARY The case concerned the conviction for defamation of two applicants, a journalist and a publishing director, following the publication of an article concerning the murder of the journalist Walter Tobagi in 1980 by a terrorist group close to the Red Brigades. With regard […]

read more

Mobile phone application for photographing and disseminating invalid ballots online and the freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary 20.01.2020 (no. 201/17) (GRAND CHAMBER) see here SUMMARY The case concerned a political party’s mobile application which allowed voters to photograph, anonymously upload and comment on invalid votes cast during a referendum on immigration in 2016. The Court found in particular that the provision of domestic election law […]

read more

Municipal councils are public authorities and are bound to tolerate stricter criticism. The intervener has the right to appeal, as does the defendant, since his freedom of expression has been violated. NGOs have the same level of protection as the press.

JUDGMENT Margulev v. Russia 08.10.2019 (no. 15449/09) see here SUMMARY The case concerned the head of a conservation NGO whose comments in a newspaper article were found to have defamed Moscow City Council. The Court first found that although the applicant was a third-party to the dispute rather than the direct object of the defamation […]

read more

In order to document responsible journalism, one must take into account in addition to the accurate and reliable information provided by journalist, his or her behavior. Irresponsible journalism is not covered by the protection of freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Zarubin and others v. Lithuania 19-12-2019 (no. 69111/17, 69112/17, 69113/17 and 69114/17) see here SUMMARY Protection of the public interest and freedom of expression. Deportation from Lithuania and a ban on the re-entry of four Russian journalists working for the Russian state broadcaster after their actions at a conference in Vilnius. The Court was […]

read more

The reasoned home investigation did not violate the right to privacy. Seizure of documents in order to conduct an investigation is a bearable restriction on the freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Man and others v. Romania 12.12.2019 (no.39273/07) see here SUMMARY The case originated in accusations against an investigative journalist, Liviu Aurel Man, and his team for operating a blackmailing network. The applicants, Mr Man, his wife and their media companies, brought multiple complaints under the Convention, essentially connected to the search-and-seizure operation at their […]

read more

Author’s and writers’ convinction of their comments on an article on Islam was excessive and violated the freedom of expression

JUDGMENT Tagiyev and  Huseynov v. Azerbaijan 5.12.2019 (no. 13274/08) see here  SUMMARY The case concerned the applicants’ conviction for inciting religious hatred and hostility with their remarks on Islam in an article they had published in 2006. The Court found in particular that the national courts had not justified why the applicants’ conviction had been […]

read more
ECHRCaseLaw

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Decline all Services
Accept all Services