On 17 December 2013 the European Court of Human Rights had ruled by five votes to two that Switzerland had violated the right to freedom of expression by convicting Doğu Perinçek, chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party, for publicly denying the existence of the genocide against the Armenian people (see our blogs on Strasbourg Observers and ECHR-Blog, 7 and 8 January 2014). The Grand Chamber has now, on 15 October 2015, in a 128 page judgment, confirmed, by ten votes to seven, the finding of a violation of Article 10 ECHR. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Article 10 (Page 3 of 5)
The European Audiovisual Observatory has published a new free eBook, Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists. The book can be downloaded from this link.
This 400 page book by the European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, offers an unparalleled overview of 240 different court cases based on or around Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights – guaranteeing freedom of speech and information. Continue reading
On 7 July 2015, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment in Morar v Romania ([2015] ECHR 668)(available only in French), ruling that a domestic court’s finding of criminal defamation against a journalist violated Article 10 principles on freedom of expression. Unfortunately, the court failed properly to engage with the issue of journalistic bad faith. Continue reading
In the case of Armellini v Austria (Judgment of 16 April 2015) the First Section of the Court of Human Rights dismissed an Article 10 complaint by applicants who had been found guilty of defaming professional footballers by accusing them of taking bribes. The decision of the domestic court to convict the applicants of defamation was based on relevant and sufficient grounds and properly balanced the Article 8 and Article 10 rights involved. Continue reading
On 29 January 2015, the Grand Chamber held a hearing in the Article 10 case of Perinçek v Switzerland. The case has been particularly controversial because, in the course of its judgment, the Chamber suggested that there was not the same international consensus in relation to the Armenian genocide as in relation to the holocaust. Continue reading
In the cases of Karácsony and v Hungary and Szél v.Hungary (applications nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13) decided on 16 September 2014 the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that financial sanctions imposed by the Speaker on demonstrating members of the opposition in the Hungarian Parliament were a violation of Article 10. Continue reading
The European Court of Human Rights has announced that [pdf] the Grand Chamber Panel has agreed to refer the important Article 10 cases of Perinçek v. Switzerland and Pentikäinen v. Finland for hearing by the Grand Chamber. Continue reading
On 27 May 2014, the Second Section of the Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment in the case of Mustafa Erdoğan v Turkey vindicating academic freedom and, in particular, the freedom to criticise the judiciary. There is also an important concurring opinion which contains some interesting general reflections on the nature of academic freedom and the reasons why it should be protected under Article 10. Continue reading
In the case of Salumäki v. Finland ([2014] ECHR 459) the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a defamation decision did not violate Article 1o, despite the fact that all the facts in the article in question were true. The article bore an defamatory “innuendo” meaning and applying the Axel Springer criteria, the Court found that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. Continue reading
In the case of Re G (Adult) (Associated Newspapers Limited intervening) ([2014] EWCOP 1361) Sir James Munby, President of the Court of Protection ruled that the Daily Mail has no standing to be joined as a party in welfare proceedings in relation to a vulnerable adult who has been declared by the courts as lacking capacity under the Mental Capacity Act. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑