Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan McCully
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Media Outlet ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

On June 27, 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (GC) delivered its judgment in Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland. It was the first time that the GC considered whether the application of data protection law to the publishing activities of a media outlet had violated the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). In its judgment, the GC found that a prohibition on two companies publishing the taxation data of 1.2 million identifiable individuals had not violated the right to freedom of expression.

S.A.S. v. France (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1072
Author(s):  
Tom Syring
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Full Face ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

On July 1, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or the Grand Chamber) delivered its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France pertaining to the legality of the French ban on wearing full-face veils in public, introduced by Law No. 2010-1192 of October 11, 2010. The decision comes on the heels of a number of related judgments in adjacent areas of dispute circumscribing the right to privacy and religion and delimiting the circumstances that may justify interference with such fundamental human rights. In the present case, the Court for the first time had to deal with a general ban on certain clothing that arguably, for those most affected, epitomizes the manifestation of their religion. Accepting the principle of “living together (le ‘vivre ensemble’)” as an inherent element of the “rights and freedoms of others” in the French context and conceding a wide margin of appreciation to the respondent state in preserving that principle, the Court found no violation of the applicant’s rights to respect for her private life (Article 8) and to freedom of religion (Article 9) under the European Convention on Human Rights (the 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.

7. Freedom of religion and expression

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Restriction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are classified as qualified rights, and examines Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which explains the right to hold or not hold a belief as well as the right to manifest a belief. It also considers how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decides if there has been manifestation of belief, interpretation of Article 10 with respect to views that shock and disturb and some forms of hate speech, and state restriction of expression. The chapter concludes with a discussion of freedom of religion and expression in the UK.

Overruling ‘the Salduz Doctrine’ in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s further retreat from the Salduz principles on the right to access to lawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-362
Author(s):  
Ergul Celiksoy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In November 2018, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Beuze v Belgium. Relying on Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber held that the Salduz principles require a two-stage test of analysis, and hence, ruled out that systematic statutory restriction of a general and mandatory nature would in itself constitute an automatic violation of Article 6 § 3(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Beuze judgment appears to be very controversial, since the Grand Chamber failed to put forward any convincing reason why it departed from previous case law, particularly Dayanan v Turkey and other judgments against Turkey. In their separate opinion, the concurring Judges in Beuze were concerned that the Beuze judgment overruled ‘ Salduz itself and all other cases that have applied the Salduz test’, and thus, ‘actually distorts and changes the Salduz principle and devalues the right that the Court established previously’. This article analyses the Beuze judgment in the light of the Court’s recent jurisprudence in order to examine whether it contradicts and dilutes the principles previously set out. Further, it discusses the implications of the new standards established in Ibrahim and Others and in subsequent cases, particularly Beuze. Particular attention is paid to the questions of how ‘fair’ is the application of overall fairness assessment in every case, how may the Court’s changing direction of approach concerning the right to access to a lawyer affect the increasing trend of recognition thereof, as a rule, by the contracting states, and finally, to what extent the new principles, especially those established in Beuze, comply with Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

scholarly journals Information delayed is justice denied

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jurij Toplak ◽  
Boštjan Brezovnik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right

European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2016 that the European Convention on Human Rights includes a right to access information held by public authorities. While according to international documents the procedures for accessing information should be ‘rapid’, the courts have yet to rule on what ‘rapid’ means and when the procedures are so long that they violate rights of those asking for information. This article analyses the length of proceedings in access to information cases in Slovenia and Croatia. It shows that these two countries do not have a system of effective protection of rights because the authorities can easily delay disclosure of information for several years. It argues that lengthy procedures violate the right to access the information and the freedom of expression. It then presents solutions for improving access to information procedures in order for them to become ‘rapid’

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Right

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

scholarly journals Internet and freedom of expression in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 1023-1042
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Mijović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Internet ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control

Internet as a means of communication, whatever the type of information it might be used for, falls within the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As established in the European Court's case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essentials of a democratic society, therefore limitations on that freedom foreseen in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are to be interpreted strictly. In order to ensure effective protection of one's freedom of expression on the Internet, States bear a positive obligation to create an appropriate regulatory framework, balancing the right to freedom of expression on one and the limitations prescribed in Article 10 § 2, on the other hand. Special attention in doing so is to be paid to the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention, particularly the right to respect for private life. While it is the fact that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, will never be subject to the same regulations and control, because of the national authorities' margin of appreciation, the European Court established commonly applicable general principles regarding the Internet as a media of exercising right to freedom of expression.

scholarly journals Protecting the Freedom of Corporate Commercial Expression and Advertising

2021 ◽  
pp. 247-261
Author(s):  
Mariia Lukan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Theoretical Substantiation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Scope Of Protection ◽  
Philosophical Understanding

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently recognized corporationsas entities falling within the scope of protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.The ECHR’s perception of corporations as “beneficiaries” of human rights is subject to criticism forconceptual incompatibility (human rights can only apply to people) and accusations that as long ascompanies refuse to commit to human rights, they should not be able to benefit from their protection).There is a discussion in the scientific literature about the philosophical and legal rationale forgranting corporations human rights. It is clear that human rights are for man. Therefore, they needa philosophical understanding and theoretical substantiation of the issue of extrapolation of humanrights protection to corporations; because corporations have a certain impact on the economic andsocial life of people, people in this context are the weaker sides. What are the consequences?This article will consider the European Court of Human Rights’ approaches to protecting corporationsfor freedom of expression and advertising under Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights.The main principles of protection of freedom of corporate expression and advertising are: 1) thecorporation has the right not only to protect freedom of expression and advertising, which appliesnot only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably (positively) perceived by society, but alsothose that are considered offensive or shocking. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance andbroad-mindedness, without which there is no “democratic society;” 2) the protection of freedomof expression of corporations is subject to exceptions, which, however, must be interpreted strictly,and the need for any restrictions must be sufficiently convincing; 3) exceptions to the protectionof freedom of expression presuppose the existence of an “urgent social need” which determineswhether a “restriction” is compatible with freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10 ofthe ECHR; 4) The task of the European Court of Human Rights in the administration of justice is todetermine whether the restrictions were “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” and whetherthe grounds given by the national authorities to justify them were “relevant and sufficient.” In doingso, the Court must satisfy itself that the domestic authorities applied standards which complied withthe principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention and, in addition, relied on an acceptableassessment of the relevant facts.According to the author, the criteria developed by the ECHR for assessing the protection of theright to freedom of corporate commercial expression and advertising are fair and effective. Given thefact that the European Convention on Human Rights is a living mechanism that should be interpretedin the “light” of modern conditions, the emergence of new improved approaches to determiningthe extent and existence of violations in this area should not be ruled out. It is true that in today’smarketplace, corporations have the right to defend their rights, including freedom of expression andadvertising, and to protect themselves, for example, from unfair competition, when a corporationis “attacked” by unfair accusations or baseless accusations that damage its business reputation. Inaddition, corporations must also respect and respect human rights. According to the author, thecreation of a truly effective mechanism for monitoring the observance of human rights by corporations can balance the weights of “opponents” and “supporters” of recognizing the right of corporations toprotection by referring to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Asserting the Right to Life (Article 2, ECHR) in the Context of Industry

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Xenos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Liberal Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Active Protection ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

In the liberal tradition, there has always been scepticism about the state's involvement in the activities of industry. Instead, internal measures by way of self-regulation and collective action have been preferred. In recognition of the reality that exclusive reliance on such solutions has not prevented violations of human rights, to which a high constitutional importance is attached, other arrangements have to be provided. In the system of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter the Convention), positive obligations are imposed engaging the state in the active protection of human rights. The need to protect human rights against the hazards of industry has been the main issue in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey, in which, for the first time in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court), a claim under the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) has successfully been asserted in the context of industry.

Marriage, Family, Discrimination & Contradiction: An Evaluation of the Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights' Jurisprudence on LGBT Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1746-1763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Lucy Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Registration System ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been considering whether same-sex couples should have the rights to marry and to be recognized as a family under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) for over thirty years. In the 1980s the European Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) and the ECtHR respectively rejected the notion that same-sex relationships constituted a “family life” under Article 8 of the ECHR, and that post-operative transgendered persons had the right to marry under Article 12. However, throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the new millennium, the ECtHR handed down a body of judgments that incrementally liberalized these rights (albeit not always smoothly) in favor of LGBT persons. This evolution culminated in part on 24 June 2010, when the ECtHR passed judgment inSchalk and Kopf v. Austria.In that case the First Section of the ECtHR made a number of major, but seemingly contradictory rulings. For the first time in its history, the ECtHR ruled that same-sex relationships expressly constitute a “family life” under Article 8, and that the right to marry under Article 12 was not confined to opposite-sex couples in “all circumstances.” However, the ECtHR simultaneously ruled that Member States are under no obligation to protect that “family life,” by providing same-sex couples with access to marriage under Article 12, or an alternative registration system under Articles 8 and 14. The Grand Chamber denied the applicants' subsequent request for a referral.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document