Article 10
Cases Article 10 ECHR – The right to freedom of expression
Handyside – No breach Article 10(1)
as fell within margin of Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
appreciation of the
impart information and ideas without interference by public
country authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
Goodwin – order for television or cinema enterprises
disclosure of source Article 10(2)
unnecessary so was a May be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
breach of article 10 penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society
Axel Springer – Article 8 Freedom to hold opinions
rights of actor States should not indoctrinate their citizens, they should show
a balanced view
outweighed newspaper’s Idea is to prevent prejudice against an individual because of
article 10 rights their views by public authorities such as the police or school
This can be seen in the operation of the equality duty under
A v B plc (Flitcroft v MGN the Equality Act 2010
ltd) – potential lack of Freedom to impart information and ideas
proper public interest Includes right to ‘offend, shock and disturb’ – freedom of
expression does not just cover inoffensive material (involves
not enough for an
idea of margin of appreciation)
injunction Type of expression covered includes – political expression,
artistic expression, commercial expression
Garaudy v France – No Political expression given particular precedence and
breach of article 10 since protection
the restriction was Freedom of the press
justifiable under article Issues with the balance of articles 8 and 10.
Protection of journalistic sources etc
10(2)
Freedom to receive information and ideas
Guerra vs Italy – no Includes right to gather info and seek it through all lawful
sources including tv and internet
positive obligation to Enables media to give info to the public
collect and disseminate Restrictions
info Set out under article 10(2)
Only allowed if they fill 3 criteria: 1 – the interferences is
Shayler – argued prescribed by law, 2 – it’s aimed at protecting one or more
disclosures were in legitimate aims, 3 – the interference is necessary in a
democratic society
public interest but
Legitimate aims
defence failed Interests of national security
Public safety
Open Door and Dublin Prevention of disorder or crime
Well Woman v Ireland – Protection of health or morals
Prohibiting info on Protection of reputation or rights of others
abortion being provided Preventing disclosure of info received in confidence
Maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
to women was seen as a
Summary
Cases Article 10 ECHR – The right to freedom of expression
Handyside – No breach Article 10(1)
as fell within margin of Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
appreciation of the
impart information and ideas without interference by public
country authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
Goodwin – order for television or cinema enterprises
disclosure of source Article 10(2)
unnecessary so was a May be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
breach of article 10 penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society
Axel Springer – Article 8 Freedom to hold opinions
rights of actor States should not indoctrinate their citizens, they should show
a balanced view
outweighed newspaper’s Idea is to prevent prejudice against an individual because of
article 10 rights their views by public authorities such as the police or school
This can be seen in the operation of the equality duty under
A v B plc (Flitcroft v MGN the Equality Act 2010
ltd) – potential lack of Freedom to impart information and ideas
proper public interest Includes right to ‘offend, shock and disturb’ – freedom of
expression does not just cover inoffensive material (involves
not enough for an
idea of margin of appreciation)
injunction Type of expression covered includes – political expression,
artistic expression, commercial expression
Garaudy v France – No Political expression given particular precedence and
breach of article 10 since protection
the restriction was Freedom of the press
justifiable under article Issues with the balance of articles 8 and 10.
Protection of journalistic sources etc
10(2)
Freedom to receive information and ideas
Guerra vs Italy – no Includes right to gather info and seek it through all lawful
sources including tv and internet
positive obligation to Enables media to give info to the public
collect and disseminate Restrictions
info Set out under article 10(2)
Only allowed if they fill 3 criteria: 1 – the interferences is
Shayler – argued prescribed by law, 2 – it’s aimed at protecting one or more
disclosures were in legitimate aims, 3 – the interference is necessary in a
democratic society
public interest but
Legitimate aims
defence failed Interests of national security
Public safety
Open Door and Dublin Prevention of disorder or crime
Well Woman v Ireland – Protection of health or morals
Prohibiting info on Protection of reputation or rights of others
abortion being provided Preventing disclosure of info received in confidence
Maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
to women was seen as a
Summary
