Under the European Convention on Human Rights, States have obligations ensure the protection both the freedom of expression and of the reputation in their domestic law. The dismissal by a domestic court of a defamation claim may be a breach of the positive obligation to protect the claimant’s reputation. The recent case of Lavric v. Romania ([2014] ECHR 44) provides a particularly striking example of such a breach.
Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Court of Human Rights (Page 2 of 3)
It 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]). Continue reading
The case of Theodora Dallas, the juror found to be in contempt of court after conducting online research, is now being considered by the European Court of Human Rights. She was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment ([2012] EWHC 156 (Admin)). She subsequently applied to the Court of Human Rights which has now communicated the case to the UK government. Continue reading
In a judgment handed down by the First Section on 28 November 2013 in the case of Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria (application no. 39534/07), the Court of Human Rights has found a breach of an NGO’s Article 10 right to obtain information from a public authority. Continue reading
In the case of Putitstin v Ukraine (Judgment of 21 November 2013) the applicant complained of an article which, he said, defamed his dead father. The Fifth Section accepted that the Article 8 of the Convention was engaged although the case failed on the facts because the applicant was only indirectly affected and the impact was remote. Continue reading
The European Court of Human Rights has decided that it is a violation of the right to privacy if a country does not have a law prohibiting surreptitious photography of people. The ruling has serious implications for paparazzi, and would have been useful to Princess Diana. A ready-made bill exists in the form of a draft published by the Law Commission for England and Wales in 1981. Continue reading
In 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. Continue reading
The decision of the Court of Human Rights in Novaya Gazeta v Russia ([2013] ECHR 251) is an interesting reminder of the requirement of journalistic responsibility even in the context of public interest articles about politicians. The case concerned a domestic libel judgment in favour of a Regional Governor based on an article containing a value judgment. It was, nevertheless, held to have been justified under Article 10(2) as there was insufficient factual basis for the statement made. The article had not been written responsibly. Continue reading
In the case of Yildrim v Turkey (Case No 3111/10) the Court of Human Rights decided that a Court order blocking access to “Google Sites” in Turkey was a violation of Article 10. The measure was not “prescribed by law” because it was not reasonably foreseeable or in accordance with the rule of law. The judgment is available only in French. Continue reading
Earlier this month, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in Mouvement Raelien Suisse v Switzerland (Application no.16354/06). The case concerned the Swiss authorities’ refusal to allow a billboard campaign by the applicant movement on grounds that its activities (including the promotion of human cloning and sensual meditation) were immoral and contrary to public order. By a majority of 9 to 8, the Grand Chamber upheld the earlier Chamber judgment that the Swiss decision was within the margin of appreciation, among other things because the poster campaign was closer in its nature to commercial speech rather than political speech. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑