23-04-2015, 15:51  / ნანახია: 886
Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Morice v. France (application no. 29369/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.
23-04-2015, 15:26  / ნანახია: 828

In the case of Junta Rectora Del Ertzainen Nazional Elkartasuna (ER.N.E.) v. Spain (application no. 45892/09), the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

 

No violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The case concerned the inability of the members of a police officers’ trade union to exercise the right to strike.

26-03-2015, 23:45  / ნანახია: 1140
  • CASE LAW CONCERNING ARTICLE 10 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2001
  • Freedom Of Expression Under The European Convention On Human Rights (Article 10) interights manual for lawyers | current as at october 2009
  • RESEARCH REPORT Positive obligations on member States under Article 10 to protect journalists and prevent impunity
  • Hate speech
  • Protection of journalistic sources
  • Internet: case-law of the European Court of Human Rights
2-03-2015, 22:16  / ნანახია: 854

In the cases of Bohlen v. Germany (application no. 53495/09) and Ernst August von Hannover v. Germany (no. 53649/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been: no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The cases concerned the use in humorous cigarette advertisements of the first names of two public figures in Germany and of news items about them, without their consent. 

2-03-2015, 15:49  / ნანახია: 946

In the case of Guseva v Bulgaria (Judgment of 17 February 2015) a Chamber of the Court of Human Rights has again recognised an Article 10 right to access to information and found a violation where a public authority had failed to provide public interest information despite court orders.