Case Law, Strasbourg: Armellini v Austria, No violation of Article 10 in “football bribes” defamation case

12 05 2015

Casino_SW_BregenzIn 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. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Axel Springer AG v Germany (No.2), The Politics of Article 10 – Alexia Bedat

23 07 2014

Was-verdient-er-wirklich-beim-Gas-Pip-2-The Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights forcefully reiterated the importance of freedom of expression in the political sphere in the case of Axel Springer AG v Germany (No.2) ([2014] ECHR 745)(French only). The Court held that the German courts had erred in finding that an article commenting on the circumstances in which the former Federal Chancellor of Germany had put an end to his term in office had overstepped the limits of journalistic freedom. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Salumäki v. Finland, No violation of Article 10 in “defamatory headline” case – Hugh Tomlinson QC

27 05 2014

20140401iltasanomatetusivu20140431In 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. Read the rest of this entry »





Privacy and Defamation, Strasbourg blurs the boundaries – Hugh Tomlinson QC

23 01 2014

ARCHITECTURE STOCKIt is now clearly established in the case law of the Court of Human Rights that Article 8 protects the “right to reputation” as an aspect of private life. This is a relatively new idea, first appearing the case law as recently as 2004 (see Chauvy v France [70]). Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Print Zeitungsverlag GmbH v Austria, a bad defamation decision based on privacy criteria – Hugh Tomlinson QC

20 11 2013

cover-customIn the case of Print Zeitungsverlag GmbH v. Austria (Judgment of 10 October 2013), the First Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a domestic defamation judgment  in favour of two local politicians did not constitute a breach of Article 10.  On the facts this was a bad decision which failed to apply established Convention case law but it is of wider interest because, apparently for the first time, the Court applied privacy case law in the defamation context. Read the rest of this entry »