text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
23. The applicant further maintained that States have positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. Since, in the present case, the Hungarian authorities had not needed to collect the impugned information, because it had been ready and available, their only obligation would have been not to bar access t... | 0 |
38. The applicant complained that the refusals by the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot authorities to allow him to cross the “green line” in order to participate in bi-communal meetings had prevented him from exercising his right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and ideas and to receive and ... | 0 |
19. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against them under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and their subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Referring, in particular, to the Court’s judgments in Gül and... | 0 |
49. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.’s name had not fallen withi... | 0 |
34. The Government further maintained that even if it were to be accepted that there had been interference with the applicant company’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, such interference had been prescribed by the domestic legislation, namely Article 15 § 2 of the Constitution, Article 3 § 1 (c) of Law N... | 0 |
48. The Government did not contest that the decision by which the domestic court had ordered the applicant to pay non-pecuniary damage to N.C.I. represented an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. They further submitted that the interference was based on Articles 998-999 of the Romanian Civil Code,... | 0 |
50. The applicants then observed that the present case did not require an examination of any interference by the State with the exercise of their freedom of expression, but rather an analysis of its positive obligation under the Convention. They took the view that the national authorities, in the present case, had a p... | 0 |
96. The applicant companies complained that their right to freedom of expression protected by paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in a manner which was not justified under its second paragraph. The collection of taxation information was not illegal as such and the information colle... | 0 |
28. The applicant complained that her right to freedom of expression had been violated. She insisted that she was free to express her opinion as a journalist, and that, by ruling against her, the domestic courts had criticised her for her professional activity and had unjustifiably limited her freedom of speech. The a... | 0 |
14. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression on account of, inter alia, the national courts' failure to state by which laws the continued confiscation was justified. He submitted that, by virtue of the lack o... | 0 |
203. The Government submitted that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities and could be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety. According to the Court’s case‑law, ... | 0 |
28. The applicant association asserted that Article <mask> of the Convention required States, to a certain extent, to make information available to the public. In its view the decisions of judicial bodies such as the Commission should be publicly accessible. Given the possibilities of electronic data processing, the a... | 0 |
51. The applicant association submitted that it was still the victim of a violation of the Convention because section 14 of the Law of 1881, as amended, placed it under a permanent threat – a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. On... | 0 |
42. The applicants also argued that the Court’s constant approach under Article <mask> of the Convention had been to protect not only information and ideas that were favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offended, shocked or disturbed the State or any segmen... | 0 |
19. The applicant complained that the District Court judgment of 29 November 2012, in respect of which leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 25 February 2013, entailed an interference with his right to freedom of expression that was not necessary in a democratic society and thus violated Article <mask> o... | 0 |
187. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in ... | 0 |
23. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Sovetskiy District Court’s judgment of 22 May 2006, which had been upheld on appeal by the Bryanskiy Regional Court on 29 June 2006, had violated his freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention. He submitted that the domes... | 0 |
26. The Government did not dispute that the libel proceedings and the sanctions imposed on the applicants constituted an interference with their freedom of expression. They argued that the interference was necessitated by a pressing social need, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others, and that th... | 0 |
100. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant’s abduction, detention and beating had been motivated by her activity of speaking out on behalf of the enclaved population of Greek Cypriots against the Turkish occupation. The respondent Government admitted that the applicant was seen as a protagonist for the... | 0 |
34. The applicant considered that her conviction for the above‑mentioned statements had amounted to an unlawful interference with her right to freedom of expression. Referring to the Court’s case-law, she considered that the domestic courts had failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of... | 0 |
61. The Government considered that, should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the aforementioned claim would be excessive. Whereas the applicant should be reimbursed the sums she had been ordered to pay in the Supreme Court's judgment, there could be no causal link between the other allege... | 0 |
88. The applicant also appeared to suggest that the BBC, acting under Royal Charter, was a public authority as was Anglia Television which acted under the authority of the ITC constituted under the Broadcasting Act 1990. Even assuming that those media could rely on their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, ... | 0 |
23. The Government suggested that, since the applicant had been acquitted in 2005, he could no longer be considered a victim. They further contended that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; since he had not at any stage in the dom... | 0 |
18. The applicant complained that his dismissal from the State television company on the ground of publishing a book including internal documents of his employer amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression and in particular his right to impart information and ideas to third parties. He relied on Article... | 0 |
92. The Government considered that in the event that a violation was found, such a finding should constitute sufficient compensation for the applicant company. In addition, the Government contested the causal link between the fine imposed on the applicant company pursuant to the domestic legislation and the alleged vi... | 0 |
120. The Government further noted that the ECJ had held that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, in judgments nos. 242/2009 and 243/2009 the Consiglio di Stato had held that national television was not a transfrontier service and that the... | 0 |
20. The applicant company complained about the authorities’ refusal to allow it to film, inside a prison, an interview with a detainee serving a sentence for murder. The company alleged that as a result of that refusal it had not been able to broadcast the interview as planned in the “Rundschau” programme about the tr... | 0 |
214. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning an interference with his right to freedom of expression. The Court notes, however, that the Government did not provide any arguments whatsoever in support... | 0 |
53. The applicant further maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He insisted that the authorities had persecuted him for his journalistic activity and his publication of articles on serious environmental issues. He also contended that the impugned information could have been found in public s... | 0 |
65. The Government submitted that Article 10 was not applicable in the present case. In any event they stated that the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of the protection of national security and was necessary in a democratic society in view of the applicants’ lack of loyalty t... | 0 |
1. The applicants, the director of a local news portal and two of its journalists, were convicted of illegally accessing radio channels used by the police during the latter’s activities, as the information so obtained by the journalists was considered confidential under the Italian Criminal Code. The Court finds no vi... | 0 |
34. The Government contended that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression in the present case. They underlined in this connection the wording of the disclaimer and apologies ordered by the domestic courts, according to which those had been “the editorial office and the author... | 0 |
34. The applicant complained that by concluding that he had committed defamation and by imposing an administrative fine and non-pecuniary damages on him, the County Court had infringed his right to freedom of expression. He also claimed that in order to present his defence and bring proof of the validity of his statem... | 0 |
28. The Government contested the complaint. They agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, but considered it in compliance with the terms of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, as regards the “necessary in a democratic society” requirement, they ... | 0 |
21. The Government contended that the injunction issued against the applicant constituted an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention which was, however, justified under § 2 of this provision. It had a legal basis, namely Section 1330 of the Civil Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of prot... | 0 |
57. The applicant essentially submits that the Government are under a positive obligation to provide effective protection for the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Given the terms of Article <mask> of the Convention, the absence of an effective domestic remedy as regards invasions of privacy by the press constitute... | 0 |
69. The Government argued that the interference was prescribed by law. Section 38(1) of the 1881 Act was an integral part of the published and accessible legislation. Moreover, case-law had established that the impugned prohibition applied to all documents from criminal case files and had set its scope, which included... | 0 |
91. The Government maintained that the Court had only a limited role in reviewing the compatibility of the national electoral systems with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Government also referred to the interrelation between the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (freedom of expression) and Article 3 of P... | 0 |
40. The applicant complained that there had been an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, in the application form, the applicant made lengthy and detailed submissions criticising the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted before... | 0 |
61. The applicant association further complained about having been discriminated against vis-à-vis the journalist M. and other animal rights activists who had been allowed to continue the publication of the impugned material. It submitted, in particular, that there was no reason to treat the applicant association any... | 0 |
122. The Government pointed out that, according to the Court’s case-law, regulation of the activities of television companies was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention, which did not prevent States from examining the technical aspects, the rights and needs of a specific audience, the nature and objectives o... | 0 |
73. The Government maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable, since the findings in the case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (no. 37374/05, § 14, April 2009, hereinafter referred to as “Társaság”) could not be decisive in the present application. In that case, in the absence of an ... | 0 |
105. The Government disputed the existence of a causal link between these costs and expenses and the events now found by the Court to have violated the Convention. They assumed that any violation which the Court might find, if violation there were, would relate to the lack of procedural safeguards. In their view, the ... | 0 |
94. The applicants argued that their detention had violated both their freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention and their freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The interference with those rights by their detention had not been justified. It had not been “prescribed by law... | 0 |
36. The applicant further argued that it was of no relevance for the assessment of whether the facts of the case amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal case against the applicant had been instituted by J.K., bringing a private prosecution in the local court. The only relevant fac... | 0 |
31. The applicant complained that he had been fined and ordered to pay damages in relation to the complaints he had made to various competent public authorities, as well as for expressing his concerns and his own opinion on posters in his shop. He claimed that that was in breach of his right to freedom of expression a... | 0 |
47. The Government argued that Article 10 was not applicable in the current case. In their opinion, the acts for which the applicant had been convicted could not be considered as journalistic investigation because they had not resulted in the publication of the information in question. The Government therefore raised ... | 0 |
33. The Government agreed that the applicants’ conviction, the fines imposed on them and the obligation to pay costs and damages to K.U. constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government agreed with the applicants that the impugned measures had... | 0 |
40. The applicant complained that she had been compelled to disclose information that had enabled a journalistic source to be identified, in violation of her right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. In her submission, the interference with her freedom of expression was... | 0 |
69. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. According to them it is of essential importance that the freedom of expression not only stipulates the right to hold opinions, but also imposes duties and responsibilities, and therefore cannot be interpreted as allowing the promoti... | 0 |
35. The Government argued that the freedom of expression enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention was not absolute. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 formulated certain conditions and restrictions concerning its exercise. Journalists, in order to comply with the duties and responsibilities referred to in that provision, ... | 0 |
62. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a breach of the right to information and dignity. The Court notes that the applicant failed to elaborate any further and to substantiate the violation complained of. As a result, this complaint must be declared inadmissible as manifestly il... | 0 |
13. The applicant complained that the French courts had convicted him of aiding and abetting public defamation of a civil servant on account of statements he had made during a television programme called Tout le monde en parle, broadcast on France 2 during the night of 23 to 24 October 1999. He complained of a violati... | 0 |
59. The Government maintained their argument stated above (see paragraph 40) that the present case essentially concerned a labour dispute governed by the provisions of private law. They reiterated that the applicant had been dismissed after having addressed an email to the Rector of the University which contained ille... | 0 |
24. The applicant association argued that the public exhibition of a painting contributed to a debate between the artist, the exhibitor and the public and was therefore protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. It accepted that the impugned interference was prescribed by law, but maintained that the interferen... | 0 |
38. The applicant complained of the impossibility of accessing his Internet site as a result of a measure ordered in the context of criminal proceedings which were wholly unrelated to his site. In his view, the measure amounted to an infringement of his freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, guaranteed b... | 0 |
24. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the interference with her right to freedom of expression had been based on the decisions of the domestic courts. As the applicant did not complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ... | 0 |
34. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, inter alia, that there had been a lack of intent, which was a necessary requirement for any criminal conviction. Even though the applicant has not lodged any complaint specifically under Article 7 of the Convention, the Court considered that his abov... | 0 |
110. The Government considered these claims unfounded. They submitted that some of the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings were not related to the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (in connection with the Ombudsman’s review and other discussions between the applicant and her lawyer). They also consi... | 0 |
35. The applicants also pointed out that the District Court, when dismissing the charges against the first applicant, had found that his criticism had not overstepped the limits of propriety. When doing so, the District Court had not referred at all to Article <mask> of the Convention, including, in particular, the “n... | 0 |
50. The applicant argued (see paragraphs 31-32 above) that she had made the impugned media statements in the exercise of her constitutionally guaranteed right of reply. She added that she had acted primarily with a view to responding to what she had seen as groundless criticism of her in the same newspaper by another ... | 0 |
223. The Government argued that the taking of Mr Savchenko to the police station and, indirectly, the termination of his solo demonstration were related to his use of foul language in a public place rather than to the fact that he was holding a demonstration. While the applicant has not argued that use of foul languag... | 0 |
31. The applicant concluded that the authorities had overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them. Moreover, the national courts’ findings had been based on an assessment of the relevant facts which could not be considered reasonable and justified and failed to interpret the matter in the light of the princ... | 0 |
110. The applicant company alleged a violation of its right to freedom of expression, and especially its freedom to impart information and ideas. It complained in particular that for a period of almost ten years the Government had not allocated it any frequencies for analogue terrestrial television broadcasting. It su... | 0 |
33. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant company’s rights had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. There was no doubt that it had had a basis in law and had served the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. As to whether the interference had bee... | 0 |
63. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Sofia City Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation had been biased, because they had wrongly assessed the evidence, had grossly misconstrued the applicable law, including Article <mask> of the Convention, and had not approached the case as ne... | 0 |
47. The applicant argued that the trial court had not taken all reasonable measures to ensure the attendance of I.B. and Še.A. at the hearing. Firstly, the trial court could have used the international legal assistance available under the “Treaty between Slovenia and the Republic of Macedonia concerning Legal Aid in C... | 0 |
41. The applicant companies maintained that the interference with their right to impart information had not been necessary in a democratic society as there had been an overriding public interest in reporting in every detail on the case in issue. The applicant companies’ reporting concentrated on the perpetrators of th... | 0 |
48. The Government observed that the nature and severity of the punishment was also to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of the interference under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the De Diego Nafría judgment, cited above, the Court had considered that, even though a dismissal had serious cons... | 0 |
33. The Government maintained that the applicants’ dismissal from their posts, following their statement of 24 February 2008, was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Their dismissal was prescribed by law as it had been based, in particular, on section 40, subsection 1, point (j), of the Diplomatic Servic... | 0 |
45. The applicant submitted that her dismissal had been the result of the airing in her show of the results of journalistic investigations that revealed unpleasant facts about the then ruling political party. There had been a direct causal link between her show and the ensuing disciplinary measures against her. Those ... | 0 |
31. The applicant considered that the ban on his accessing the websites of the Council of Europe Information Office in Tallinn, the Chancellor of Justice and the Riigikogu violated his right to receive information and was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that he had been engaged in a number ... | 0 |
27. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had found that the impugned passages constituted not the opinions of or speculations by the authors of the article but statements of fact which had presented the plaintiff in a negative light. The newspaper had failed to verify the veracity of those statements prio... | 0 |
26. The applicant complained that the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal implied that, during trial proceedings, a lawyer was not allowed to conclude from facts known to him that unacceptable pressure had been exerted on his client. He alleged a violation of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed... | 0 |
18. The applicant complained that his conviction in criminal proceedings for the protest of 29 January 2013 amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. The Court considers that t... | 0 |
67. The Government did not accept that the interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression lacked an adequate legal basis for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention. Media companies in Ireland were familiar with the domestic rules on defamation and damages. The applicant company should have ex... | 0 |
56. The Government emphasised that the applicants had not been convicted for expressing strong criticism of the police, but exclusively for having taken it upon themselves to make the very specific, unsubstantiated and extremely serious accusation against the named chief superintendent that he had intentionally suppre... | 0 |
23. The Government denied that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they argued that the domestic authorities had not had the information sought by the applicant. According to the Government, Russian law required information centres to prepare... | 0 |
85. The Government did not contest that the impugned judgments constituted an interference with the applicant company’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and submitted that it had been prescribed by law, in particular by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, that it had followed the legitimate aim of ... | 0 |
28. The Government did not dispute that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable and that there had been an interference with the applicants’ rights under that provision. In their view, that interference had been “prescribed by law” – sections 45 and 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1951 –, and had been ... | 0 |
15. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713, and his subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Referring in particular to the Court’s judgments in Savgın v. Turk... | 0 |
80. The Government submitted that the disciplinary action against the applicant, followed by his removal from the position of chief prosecutor on account of the manner in which he had presented to the press information concerning the pending criminal investigation, could be considered as interference with the applican... | 0 |
24. The Government contended that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The third sentence of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention specifically envisaged the power of States to require broadcasting licences. This requirement applied not only to technical aspects but also, as the Court had pointe... | 0 |
22. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not been tried by an independent and impartial court on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Adana State Security Court which convicted him. He further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his cr... | 0 |
21. The applicant complained that the domestic courts’ decisions imposing sanctions on him for expressing his views concerning a demonstration, which had been organised by the trade union of which he was the chairman, had violated his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Conventio... | 0 |
78. The Government contested the existence of a causal link between the pecuniary damage suffered and the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of a violation being found under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government conceded that the applicant company was entitled to compensation... | 0 |
103. The applicant also complained under Articles 6 §§ 1-3 (a)-(d) and 8 of the Convention about the police putting pressure on him and, in particular, tapping his telephone. With a reference to Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant complained that he was unable to vote in the election of the Russian Preside... | 0 |
83. The Government submitted that both Article <mask> of the Convention (in referring to “duties and responsibilities” as well as to formalities, conditions and penalties) and the domestic law permitted the State to put in place a framework containing the procedure of and conditions of the information flow. While Arti... | 0 |
40. The applicants’ request for information on public defenders in criminal proceedings was rejected by the domestic courts on the basis of the Hungarian Data Act (see paragraph 32 of the judgment), which provides that “personal data”, held by public authorities is not amenable to public access unless very limited exc... | 0 |
19. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contented, however, that it was prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of § 2 of Article 10. They argued in the first place that the Court o... | 0 |
147. The applicant argued that public nudity was a clear form of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The term “expression” had been widely construed by the Court to cover various different forms of expression, including expression in words, in pictures, by video and through conduct inten... | 0 |
103. The applicants argued that the order to surrender the original documents, ostensibly for the purpose of restoring the documents to the AIVD, had in fact been intended to make possible the positive identification of the journalistic source. The applicants alleged a violation of their freedom, as purveyors of news,... | 0 |
76. The applicant company submitted that the advance viewing of the programme in issue by the Brussels Court of Appeal in order to monitor its content before it was broadcast, and the subsequent banning of the programme as a preventive measure, had infringed freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom to i... | 0 |
176. The applicant’s case is troubling, since his intransigence has led to his spending a substantial period of time in prison for what is – in itself – usually a relatively trivial offence (see paragraph 100 above). However, the applicant’s imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law... | 0 |
26. The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and the plaintiff’s rights protected under Article 8. In that regard they relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006); Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens... | 0 |
28. The applicant disagreed. He maintained that the domestic courts had held him liable for inability to prove the truth of value judgments whereas the veracity of the underlying statements of fact had not even been contested. In particular, it had not been contested either that there had been significant financial co... | 0 |
45. The applicant alleged that his right to freedom of expression had been breached as a result of the administrative sanction applied to him. He contended that there had been an interference with his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention, but conceded that it had been “prescribed by law”. He doubte... | 0 |
49. The applicants began by arguing that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable in the present case. They observed that in spite of their numerous endeavours they could not gain access to the radio station’s studios and equipment, thus finding it impossible to secure the enforcement of the decision of 6 Decem... | 0 |
76. The applicant complains that the refusal to publish a paid advertisement by Rzeczpospolita, breached his right to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicant could not publish an advertisement in the Rzeczpospolita newspaper, owned by a limited li... | 0 |
50. The Government submitted that the applicant could not be considered the victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the domestic proceedings in question had been concerned with statements made by her late father and not by the applicant herself. The Government argued that, since the applicant... | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.