The United Kingdom in Strasbourg – all the Article 10 judgments

The House of Commons Library has published  UK Cases at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975 [pdf] outlining all the cases involving the UK at Strasbourg since 1975, with links to the judgments since September 1997.  Following a request on Twitter by Adam Wagner of the “UK Human Rights Blog” for a breakdown down of the cases by category he had two responses.   There is a Word document from University of Law’s Trevor Jackson and an Excel spreadsheet from David Charlton.

Case Law, Strasbourg, Novaya Gazeta v Russia, libel claim by politician over corruption article, no violation of Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

The decision of the Court of Human Rights in Novaya Gazeta v Russia ([2013] ECHR 251) is an interesting reminder of the requirement of journalistic responsibility even in the context of public interest articles about politicians.  The case concerned a domestic libel judgment in favour of a Regional Governor based on an article containing a value judgment.  It was, nevertheless, held to have been justified under Article 10(2) as there was insufficient factual basis for the statement made.  The article had not been written responsibly.

Case Law, Court of Human Rights, OOO Ivpress v Russia, Defamation judgments breached Article 10

The judgment in OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia (HEJUD [2013] ECHR 67) provides a useful reminder of the importance of distinguishing “value judgments” from “facts” in libel cases and of the importance of engaging in a specific consideration as to whether a publication contributes to a debate of general interest. The case also reminds us of the strict standards which are applied to sanctions against political speech. Violations of Article 10 were found in four linked cases in which the Russian domestic courts had entered defamation judgments against the Ivanovo-Press newspaper.

Case Law, Strasbourg: Alkaya v. Turkey and Szima v. Hungary – Gabrielle Guillemin

Earlier this month, the Strasbourg Court handed down two interesting decisions involving freedom of expression. In Alkaya v Turkey (no. 42811/06, 9 October 2012)(in French only), the Court held that the disclosure of the home address of a Turkish actress (pictured) in a newspaper article was a violation of her right to private life under Article 8 ECHR.

The Right to Privacy and Advance Notification: Mosley v The United Kingdom, Part 2 – Ashley Savage and Paul Mora

The discussion in the first part of this post clearly showed that domestic law did not provide Max Mosley with an effective remedy for his invasion of privacy of which he complained before the European Court. Strasbourg’s finding that art. 8 does not impose a positive obligation on Contracting States to implement a measure where individuals are provided with notification in advance of an intrusive publication being made so that they may seek an interim injunction is thus open to strong criticism.

The Right to Privacy and Advance Notification: Mosley v The United Kingdom, Part 1 – Ashley Savage and Paul Mora

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg handed down judgment in the case of Mosley v. The United Kingdom ((2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 30) on May 10, 2011. The applicant, Mr Max Mosley, argued that art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) imposed a positive obligation on Contracting States to enact a legal measure which required individuals to receive notification from the press in advance of them publishing information that interfered with their private lives.