Case Law, Strasbourg: Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France, A Hereditary Game of Thrones – Alexia Bedat

13 06 2014

????????????????????????????In the case of Courdec and Hachette Filipacchi v France the privacy rights of another member of Monaco’s ruling family were outweighed by the interests of the press: French court order found to have breached Paris-Match’s Article 10 by Strasbourg. Read the rest of this entry »





The Right to Freedom of Expression and Information under the European Human Rights System : Towards a more Transparent Democratic Society – Dirk Voorhoof

14 02 2014

ARCHITECTURE STOCKSome commentary on recent case law of the Strasbourg Court relating to freedom of expression, media and journalism might give the impression that the Court of Human Rights has lost direction. This impression would be misleading. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Print Zeitungsverlag GmbH v Austria, a bad defamation decision based on privacy criteria – Hugh Tomlinson QC

20 11 2013

cover-customIn the case of Print Zeitungsverlag GmbH v. Austria (Judgment of 10 October 2013), the First Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a domestic defamation judgment  in favour of two local politicians did not constitute a breach of Article 10.  On the facts this was a bad decision which failed to apply established Convention case law but it is of wider interest because, apparently for the first time, the Court applied privacy case law in the defamation context. Read the rest of this entry »





The United Kingdom in Strasbourg – all the Article 10 judgments

10 05 2013

court buildingThe 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. Read the rest of this entry »





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

5 04 2013

novaia-gazeta-160The 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. Read the rest of this entry »





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

31 01 2013

4CC6B51C7B08CThe 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. Read the rest of this entry »





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

28 10 2012

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. Read the rest of this entry »





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

28 06 2012

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. Read the rest of this entry »





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

27 06 2012

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. Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,700 other followers