In its judgment of 17 July 2018 the ECtHR has found various violations of the rights of the members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot. The ECtHR found violations under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) ECHR (right to fair trial), in relation to the conditions of their transportation and detention in the courthouse, their pre-trial detention, the treatment during the court hearings (being exposed to public view in a glass dock surrounded by armed police), and restrictions to legal assistance. Read the rest of this entry »
Case Law, Strasbourg: Mariya Alekhina v. Russia, Pussy Riot, the right to protest and to criticise the President, and the Patriarch – Dirk Voorhoof
18 09 2018Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Dirk Voorhoof, Peaceful Protest, Pussy Riot, Russia, Strasbourg Observers
Categories : Freedom of expression, Human Rights
Big Brother Watch v UK: What are the implications for the Investigatory Powers Act? – Graham Smith
14 09 2018
Yesterday I was transported back in time, to that surreal period following the Snowden revelations in 2013 when anyone who knew anything about the previously obscure RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) was in demand to explain how it was that GCHQ was empowered to conduct bulk interception on a previously unimagined scale. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Big Brother Watch, Cyberleagle, Graham Smith
Categories : Freedom of expression, Human Rights, Privacy, Surveillance
Case Law, Strasbourg: ML and WW v Germany, Article 8 right to be forgotten and the media – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Aidan Wills
4 07 2018
In the case of ML and WW v Germany ([2018] ECHR 554) (available only French), the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights dismissed an Article 8 “right to be forgotten” application in respect of the historic publication by the media of information concerning a murder conviction. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Aidan Wills, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Rehabilitation, Right to be Forgotten
Categories : Caselaw, Freedom of expression, Germany, Human Rights, Privacy
Do Companies have a right to reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, Part 2 – David Acheson
21 06 2018
The first part of this post considered the question of whether Art 8 of the Convention protects corporate reputation and concluded that the Court’s case law does not provide any good justification for this. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Article 8, David Acheson, Right to Reputation
Categories : Human Rights, Libel
Do Companies have a right to reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, Part 1 – David Acheson
19 06 2018
In contrast to the frequent discussion of the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence establishing that individual reputation falls within the scope of the Article 8 right to ‘private and family life’, the possibility that corporations could claim a Convention right to reputation – under either Art 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 (‘A1P1’), the right to property – has not attracted a great deal of attention from commentators. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Article 8, David Acheson, Reputation
Categories : Human Rights, Libel
Case Law, Strasbourg: Stomakhin v Russia, No overbroad suppression of extremist opinions and ‘hate speech’ – Dirk Voorhoof
14 06 2018
In its recent judgment in Stomakhin v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) launched the message to all domestic authorities to adopt a “cautious approach” in determining the scope of “hate speech” crimes and to avoid “excessive interference” with the right to freedom of expression, especially when action is taken against ‘hate speech’ or extremist opinions that are mere criticism of the government, state institutions and their policies and practices. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Dirk Voorhoof, Hate Speech, Strasbourg Observers
Categories : Freedom of expression, Human Rights
Case Law, Strasbourg: Benedik v Slovenia: Police need court order to access subscriber information associated with a dynamic IP address – Argyro Chatzinikolaou
9 06 2018
In its judgement in the case of Benedik v Slovenia the Fourth Section of the Court held i that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with regard to the failure of the Slovenian police to obtain a court order before accessing subscriber information associated with a dynamic IP address[1]. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Argyro Chatzinikolaou, Strasbourg Observers
Categories : Human Rights, Privacy
