A10: Freedom of Expression

?
Handyside v UK
H published controversial book in UK & prosecuted for obscene items =fine/destruction. St-restrict FoE, avaliable in other EU, UK justify on protecting morals. no common standard so discretion. show democ necc found outrage enough. no breach
1 of 20
Sunday Times v UK
Times published reports on long term effects of thalidomide. Company unhappy get injunction from AG. St-justify w/ protecting judicial system 10(2) balance 1&2. greater protections 1. Maj found violation of injunction.
2 of 20
Steel v UK
engaged in physical protest held this can be FoE.
3 of 20
Ozgur Gundem v Turkey
published pro-Kurdish paper. claimed suffered attacks journalists killed & buildings arsoned. Police done nothing. St - positive obligations to protect FoE, fair balance to expression & state. polie not done enough = breach
4 of 20
Lingens v Austria
L criticised politicians in paper. chancellor sued defamation. St-importance of FoE between democ MS. Key part of Democ is ability to oppose politicians in media. Must be more
5 of 20
Castells v Spain
Articles written accusing Gov of killing Basque activists. Convicted. St - protection of pol expression extended, criticising the state (not indiv) can be more critical as more power. Breach A10 (esp as had proof!)
6 of 20
Incal v Turkey
opposition post leaflet critical of local auth, then prosecuted. St- Gov said it encouraged violence. looked at leaflet v.critical no violence. Cant use A10 if enciting violence. Not so Breach.
7 of 20
Janowski v Poland
J activist, PCOs moved street traders, J disagreed and intervened abusively. Convicted for assaulting officials. St - diff to Lingens as assaulting officials not state. State emp shouldnt be insulted. No Breach.
8 of 20
Thorgeirson v Iceland
Articles on police behavior w/strong language.Police prosecuted T. St - Commenting on public important so pol expression. St - reject police diff to politicians criticism. matters of public interest have A10 same protection. Breach
9 of 20
Jersild v Denmark
TV journalist, show on minority racist groups. Authorities prosecuted J for racist views & aiding and abetting racism. St - intentional expression of racism is contrary ECHR so no protection A10. J not doing so just informing public so breach.
10 of 20
Lehideux & Isorni v France (widen A10)
Marshall P collaberate w/ Nazis. Put on trial. L&I wanted reprisal & paid ads for their views. Fined for justifying Nazis. St -pro-nazi/facist views racist so no A10 protection. acts/reapprisable not support his views so protected = Breach.
11 of 20
Rekvenyi v Hungary
H indept parl removing old communist past, prohibit members of police etc party political views. officer wanted to stand for parl couldnt. St - look at const history for acceptable? due to fear of comm dominance can depoliticize - breach
12 of 20
Muller v Switzerland
Artist commission for town commemoration, graphic sexual activity. Put around town, child upset. Prosecuted M for obscenity. Confiscated paintings. St-art is protected, 10(2) protecting public morals, no common standard = discretion. No breach.
13 of 20
Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria
Showed controversial film (anti-christian figures) restricted +17yo & pay. Church order prosecution for blasphemy. St- justify 10(2) rights of others will include religious belief. Held no breach as justifiable.
14 of 20
Mark intern Verlag v Germany
Publish business mag small ones subscribe, posted critical of Br company. Injunction proceeding. St-affect indiv business = A10. divided court. No breach held wide margin of appreciation to reg commercial exp.
15 of 20
Hertel v Switzerland
H believe microwave meals inhumane published concerns. Injunction. St - relied on Mark intern discretion. ditinguished H included issues of public health so in public interest reduces discretion. Not justifiable to stop views. Breach.
16 of 20
Groppera Radio AG v Switzerland
State monopoly on radio, tried to get round by transmitting over it from italy w/ ads. Swits ban rebroadcasting. G challenge, rely on liveing powers. St-reject arguement not sufficient must meet 10(2). swiss law must be national, for protection of
17 of 20
Groppera Cont.
others and appt for democ soc = No breach.
18 of 20
Informationsverein Lentia v Austria
State monopoly TV/radio. L wanted private stations no licence given=challenge. Aus defend on protection of cultural identity as private tv undermines. Democ so pluralism is key for democ soc. St-Aus ban undermines pluralism in media, not justified.
19 of 20
Lentia Cont.
Breach . small places still had it now states no longer allowed monopoly of media.
20 of 20

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Times published reports on long term effects of thalidomide. Company unhappy get injunction from AG. St-justify w/ protecting judicial system 10(2) balance 1&2. greater protections 1. Maj found violation of injunction.

Back

Sunday Times v UK

Card 3

Front

engaged in physical protest held this can be FoE.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

published pro-Kurdish paper. claimed suffered attacks journalists killed & buildings arsoned. Police done nothing. St - positive obligations to protect FoE, fair balance to expression & state. polie not done enough = breach

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

L criticised politicians in paper. chancellor sued defamation. St-importance of FoE between democ MS. Key part of Democ is ability to oppose politicians in media. Must be more

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

Elias Alvarenga

Report

I'm still enjoying this group, and is the first time I'm used, its amazing

Similar Law resources:

ECHR
See all Law resources »See all ECHR resources »