In the case of Balaskas v Greece[2020] ECHR 783 the European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a journalist of insulting a headmaster by describing him as a neo-Nazi in an article breached his right to freedom of expression. Continue reading
In Pryanishnikov v Russia ([2019] ECHR 614), a case concerning the authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant a film reproduction license, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right to freedom of expression, as the only reason advanced by the domestic courts for the refusal of the relevant license had been based on mere suspicions rather than findings of fact. Continue reading
In Szurovecz v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights has held that a refusal to grant a journalist access to an asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. Continue reading
The European Court’s Fourth Section has held, by four votes to three, that a protestor’s conviction, including a suspended three-year prison sentence, for frying eggs over the flame of a war memorial, did not violate the protestor’s freedom of expression. The judgment in Sinkova v. Ukraine prompted a notable dissent, which highlighted “inconsistency” with the Court’s prior case law, and a disregard for the principle that criminal penalties are likely to have a “chilling effect on satirical forms of expression relating to topical issues.” Continue reading
In Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (No.2) v Austria [2017] ECHR 1040, the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) held that ordering a newspaper to pay compensation to a politician falsely accused of being the spiritus rector (guiding spirit) of a spying operation did not violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Continue reading
In the case of Giesbert v France ([2017] ECHR 504, 1 June 2017)(French only) the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that Court orders made against the magazine, Le Point, sanctioning the publication of criminal court documents in the high profile “Bettancourt” case did not violate Article 10 of the Convention. Continue reading
In a unanimous judgment ([2017] UKSC 33) handed down today the UK Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by Times Newspapers, Associated Newspapers and MGN against orders that they pay success fees and after the event insurance premiums (“additional liabilities”) under conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”) in libel and privacy claims. Continue reading
In the case of Olafsson v Iceland ([2017] ECHR 259) the Court of Human Rights held that the Icelandic courts were wrong to hold a website editor liable for publishing allegations made by two sisters that their relative, A, who was standing for election for the Constitutional Assembly had sexually abused them when they were children. Continue reading
On 12 January 2017, the Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in the case of Lykin v Ukraine ([2017] ECHR 17), providing a timely reminder that freedom of political expression under Article 10 can trump reputation. Continue reading
On 26 October 2016, the Supreme Court (Lords Mance, Reed and Toulson) gave Mirror Group Newspapers permission to appeal against a decision of Mann J on costs and CFAs. Continue reading