scholarly journals Licensed to kill…discourse? agents provocateurs and a purposive right to freedom of expression

2021 ◽  
pp. 092405192110334
Author(s):  
Katie Pentney
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Police Services ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
The Right

Undercover police operations have emerged from the shadows and into the spotlight in the United Kingdom as a result of a public inquiry into undercover policing and the enactment of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act. The inquiry has revealed troubling details about the ways intelligence and police services have wielded their powers to infiltrate and undermine political groups and social movements over the course of five decades. The problem is not exclusive to the United Kingdom, but is seen the world over. Yet despite the widescale nature of the problem, the legality of agents provocateurs – undercover officers who infiltrate social and political movements to manipulate their messaging, instigate violent tactics and undermine public perception – has received scant attention in legal scholarship or the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article capitalises on the current spotlight to suggest that agents provocateurs can and should be conceived of as (potential) violations of the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. A purposive approach is required to ensure protection for not only the means of expression – the exchange of information and ideas – but also the ends – vibrant democratic discourse and meaningful public debate.

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 McGoliath v. David: The European Court of Human Rights Recent “Equality of Arms” Decision

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 895-907
Author(s):  
Monique C. Lillard
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Small Step ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
Fair Hearing

The European Court of Human Rights has issued a judgment which adds to the developing law of Article 6, Section 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or “the Convention”) and which sheds light on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and its interaction with the law of defamation. Practically, the decision in Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as Steel) is likely to prompt a review of the availability of legal aid for defendants in civil cases in the United Kingdom (“UK”), and may be a small step towards balancing the arms in ad terrorem suits brought by large corporations against private citizens in order to silence public debate.

scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND MALAYSIA IN RESPECT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazli Ismail @ Nawang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

International law, particularly treaties on human rights, has great influence on the development of the right to freedom of expression. The application of international treaties is very much dependant on the constitutions of individual countries and these constitutions to a large extent are dissimilar from one to another. The position in the United Kingdom is relatively unique since the country has no codified written constitution to safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression and as a result it was regarded as residual in nature. Nonetheless, the provisions of the international treaties, particularly the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) have altered this position and accordingly freedom of expression has been formally incorporated into the UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Meanwhile, the international human rights treaties is considered to have less influence in Malaysia arguably since the country has a written constitution (the Federal Constitution) that contains a specific part on fundamental liberties including the right to freedom of expression. Keywords: International law, treaties, freedom of expression.

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom

2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miša Zgonec-Rožej
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

In Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, decided on July 7, 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (the Court) found that the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom applied to its actions in Iraq and that the United Kingdom had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR) by failing to investigate the circumstances of the deaths of the relatives of five of the six applicants. The case deals with the extraterritorial application in Iraq of the Convention, which is part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and involves the concepts of jurisdiction, effective control, and the scope of the right to life.

scholarly journals CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DECISIONS REGARDING NON-COMPLIANCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
Dzhuzha О. M. ◽  
◽  
Melnychenko І. P. ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article provides a legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases like “Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom”, “Hutchinson v. The United Kingdom”. The European Court of Human Rights has established key standards for those sentenced to life imprisonment, compliance with which will ensure that this type of punishment meets the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such standards are: 1) sentencing of life imprisonment is not prohibited and does not conflict with the Article 3 or any other article of the Convention. The imposition of “non-reducible” life imprisonment may raise questions of compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention; 2) in decision making whether life imprisonment can be considered as “non-reducible”, it is necessary to establish whether the person convicted to life imprisonment had any prospect of release. If national law provides for the possibility of reviewing life imprisonment regarding its mitigating, reducing, terminating or releasing, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of th Article 3 of the Convention; 3) for the purposes of the Article 3 of the Convention it is sufficient that life imprisonment is reducible de jure and de facto; 4) European penitentiary policy is currently focusing on the correctional purpose of imprisonment, in particular until the end of long prison sentences; 5) at the very beginning of the sentence a person convicted to life imprisonment has the right to know what he must do to consider the possibility of his release and under what conditions the sentence will be reviewed or also in what order a request to this may be made; 6) if domestic law does not provide for any mechanism or possibility to review life imprisonment, then the non-compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention occurs at the time of imposition of life imprisonment and not at a later stage. The importance of such standards separating of the European Court of Human Rights for the national theory and practice of life imprisonment is that these provisions are effective guidelines for determining the prospects of releasing from sentencing in the form life imprisonment. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law, convict, life imprisonment.

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.

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’

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document