The article examines the main criteria for the legitimacy of restriction the right to freedom of creation in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, legitimacy (legality) – the restriction of the right to freedom of creation should be provided for by international and national legislation, the purpose of which is to restrict the right to freedom of creation to be justified, coherent purpose, consistent with the principle proportionality and not to go beyond the bounds of necessity; content – restrictions on the freedom of creation can not be interpreted expanded, correspond to the basic content of freedom of creation and its social purpose.
It has been determined that in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights there are various legal positions regarding the restriction of the right to freedom of creation. In order to streamline the practice of applying the Convention, since compliance with the precedent not only meets the requirements of the independence and impartiality of the Court, but also reflects the very essence of judicial policy, consider the most typical decisions of the ECtHR in complaints about limiting the right to freedom of creation.
It is concluded that in each case dealt with by the ECtHR, there are grounds for making a decision both in favor of the complainants and in support of governments for limiting the freedom of creativity. The importance of the above mentioned restrictions on the right to freedom of creativity in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is that:
- first, they relate to pressing issues concerning the restriction of freedom of creation, as the competence of the right to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in Art. 10 of the Convention;
- second, in the cases cited above, the ECtHR ruled that convictions were not in these cases in violation of Article 10 of the Convention and supported the position of national courts in interfering with freedom of expression of the arts;
- Thirdly, the decision of the ECHR points to the absence of a single international concept of "public morality", from which it can be concluded that it is expedient to determine the general tendencies in the development of modern morals of mankind;
- fourthly, the decision of the ECtHR in complaints concerning the restriction of the right to freedom of creativity, which infringes religious feelings of the population, norms of social ethics and morals, provided that the state intervention was carried out with a high degree of conviction in its expediency, the court turns to the side national courts.
Relevant restrictions on the freedom of creativity are considered legitimate if they are aimed at preventing neglect of the feelings of national minorities or believers in protecting the most vulnerable categories of the audience (children) if there is a danger that they may have access to this information. However, we are talking about well-considered decisions, since under the same slogans censorship and other undemocratic institutions can be introduced, and here the important point of the ECHR as a guarantor of the Convention is considered.
It is determined that in the European legal tradition, the freedom of creativity is closely connected with the restrictions, the need for which must be proved with a high degree of their legitimacy (legality), proportionality and expediency (purpose).
The analysis of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the violation of Article 10 of the Convention made it possible to summarize the case law of the ECHR in the area of restricting the right to freedom of creation and to divide it into three groups, depending on the grounds for interference of the states in the freedom of creativity: Restriction of the right to freedom of creativity in order to protect health; Restrictions on the right to freedom of creativity that are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public security, in order to prevent riots or crimes; Restriction of the right to freedom of creativity in order to protect the reputation or rights of others.
When restricting the right to freedom of creativity in order to protect the health or morals of others, the case law of the ECtHR recognizes a broad discretion by the states. In resolving the question of the limits of state intervention in order to protect public morality, the Court proceeds from the absence of a single coherent international concept of "public morality". The limits of freedom of creativity are set by the states in accordance with the norms of social ethics and morals. Relevant restrictions on the freedom of creativity are considered legitimate if they are aimed at preventing neglect of the feelings of national minorities or believers, to protect the most vulnerable categories of the audience (children), etc. (“Müller and Others v. Switzerland”, "Handyside v. Great Britain", "Otto Preminger v. Austria").
The restrictions on creativity in the practice of the ECHR in cases involving encroachments on the democratic foundations of society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public security, in order to prevent riots or crimes are relatively narrower. The precedent of such decisions in assessing the validity of government actions, their determinants of urgent social need, proportionality and compliance with the legitimate aim. When interfering with the right to freedom of creativity, an analysis of the balance between the restrictions that are necessary in a democratic society and the right to freedom of expression are considered. Summing up the practice of the ECHR concerning restrictions on the freedom of creativity that are necessary in a democratic society.
PROBLEM OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO BUSINESS OWNERS DURING THE QUARANTINE PERIOD: ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
