13. Defamation

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Chilling Effect ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with the actions in defamation that protect reputation, paying particular attention to the relationship between the protected interest in reputation and the competing interest in freedom of expression. It first considers relevant provisions in the Defamation Act 2013, including the ‘serious harm’ criterion, before turning to the terms of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to freedom of expression, with emphasis on the so-called chilling effect. It also discusses libel and slander as well as malicious falsehood, elements of a claim in defamation, defences available to the accused, and the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to hear defamation claims. The chapter concludes by looking at parties who cannot sue in defamation.

scholarly journals FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE LIFE

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (4/2020) ◽  
pp. 249-265
Author(s):  
Goran Ilic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The paper analyzes the relationship between freedom of expression and the right to respect for honour and reputation. It was pointed out the importance that is given to freedom of expression nowadays, and it was especially considered the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. On that occasion, the difference that exists between public and private personalities was pointed out, as well as the doubts that may arise from the distinction between factual statements and value judgments. When it comes to the right to privacy, the author referred to the importance of honour and reputation, and on that occasion reminded of the “double” presence of these values. In one case it is Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in another the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the meaning of the term of the right to privacy from Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Solutions in domestic law and case law are analyzed, and special attention is paid to one case in which the relationship between freedom of expression and violation of honor and reputation was discussed. The specificity of this situation is reflected, inter alia, in the fact that we are talking about university professors. The author used the normative, comparative and historical method when writing the paper.

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 The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 – Ten Years On

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-96
Author(s):  
Ronagh JA McQuigg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
General Level ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 has now been in force in Ireland for ten years. This article analyses the Act itself and the impact which it has had on the Irish courts during the first decade of its operation. The use of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Irish courts prior to the enactment of the legislation is discussed, as are the reasons for the passing of the Act. The relationship between the Act and the Irish Constitution is examined, as is the jurisprudence of the Irish courts towards the interpretative obligation found in section 2(1), and the duty placed upon organs of the State by section 3(1). The article ends with a number of observations regarding the impact which the Act has had on the Irish courts at a more general level. Comparisons will be drawn with the uk’s Human Rights Act 1998 throughout the discussion.

scholarly journals 4 The Court and Domestic and International Legal Systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and domestic and international legal systems. With the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Member States accept to be bound by final judgments of the Court and to implement them in their domestic legal systems. The Convention system does not make any difference as to the set-up of the national legal system or to the hierarchical position accorded to the Convention in national law. This is in line with a purist international law perspective, summarized in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties: ‘A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ However, from the constitutional law perspective of the Member States, the situation is much more multi-faceted and complex. While it is generally accepted that the Court's judgments are binding and have to be implemented, the relationship between the Convention and the national constitutions as well as between their respective guardians, the Court on the one hand and national constitutional or supreme courts on the other hand, is not seen as one-way and hierarchical, but nuanced and differentiated. Implementation of judgments is accepted to be a duty, but not necessarily without exceptions. The chapter then considers the relationship between the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

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.

Regulation

2020 ◽  
pp. 106-130
Author(s):  
Julian Petley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Corporate Power ◽  
Private Lives ◽  
The Press ◽  
Privacy Breach ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter examines the laws which have had a particular bearing on the practice of journalism in newspapers in England and Wales in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. These relate to defamation, privacy, breach of confidence, official secrecy and terrorism. In particular it focusses on the recent impact of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 on how courts have interpreted and applied the various laws affecting press freedom in these particular areas. It argues that whilst much of the press has chafed against laws which prevent it from invading people’s private lives and unjustly defaming them, it has been remarkably insouciant about those which make it difficult to reveal abuses of state and corporate power.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document