Reputation Protection and Freedom of Expression in the European Court of Human Rights Practice
Abstract
The actuality of the research topic is stipulated by a number of factors. Science and technology and information technology intensive development has become a factor in changes in the field of human rights, influencing their content, forms and means of implementation, and has led to the new rights emergence. Particularly significant impact occurred on the rights enshrined in Art. 8 and Art. 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms providing for the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. The European Court of Human Rights considers the right to reputation protection as a component of the right to privacy. It is noted that a clear and systematic understanding of the correlation between the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation protection is the basis of effective law enforcement activities in this category of cases. The purpose of the article is to cover the main provisions of the European Court of Human Rights established practice in finding a balance between the right to freedom of expression and reputation protection in order to further improve national legal practice in this category of cases. The scientific novelty is stipulated by the clarification of the issues of finding a balance between the freedom of expression and reputation protection, which has been little studied by domestic legal science, through a systematic analysis of the European Court of Human Rights practice. Conclusions. The analysis of the European Court of Human Rights practice allowed to formulate the following provisions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the context of reputation protection: freedom of expression is the basis of a democratic society; democracy is hardly possible without this right; reputation protection is carried out within the right to privacy protection; any person may be criticized in a democratic society (however, when it is acceptable criticism) and, accordingly, may be subject to invasion of privacy (the sphere of privacy of a public figure is smaller compared to the privacy of non-public persons); in finding a balance between freedom of expression and reputation protection, the general context of the case must be taken into account.
Keywords: European Court of Human Rights; reputation protection; right to privacy; right to freedom of expression; European Court of Human Rights practice.
Downloads
References
Антошкіна В. К. Особливості тлумачення конвенції про захист прав людини та основоположних свобод і застосування практики Європейського суду з прав людини при здійсненні судочинства в Україні. Філософські та методологічні проблеми права. 2019. № 2 (18). С. 116–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.33270/02191802.11.
Братасюк М. Г. Філософія захисту прав людини з позицій сучасного правового мислення. Право України. 2020. № 1 (19). С. 14–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.33270/02201901.14.
Букач В., Камінська Н., Медвідь Л. Інституційні гарантії конституційних політичних прав і свобод людини та громадянина в Україні. Юридичний часопис Національної академії внутрішніх справ. 2021. № 1 (21).
С. 39–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.33270/04212101.39.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Handyside v the UK from December 7, 1976 (Application No. 5493/72). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Lingens v. Austria from July 8, 1986 (Application No. 9815/82). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57523.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Oberschlick v Austria from May 23, 1991 (Application No. 11662/85). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57716.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Marlow v the UK from December 5, 2000 (Application No. 42015/98). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-22833.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia from July 31, 2007 (Application No. 25968/02). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-82038.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of A. v. Norway from April 9, 2009 (Application No. 28070/06). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-92137.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Eon v. France from March 14, 2013 (Application No. 26118/10). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117742.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Dzhugashvili v. Russia from December 9, 2014 (Application No. 41123/10). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-150568.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Ojala and Etukeno oy v. Finland from January 14, 2014 (Application No. 69939/10). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-139991.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Sinkova v. Ukraine from February 27, 2018 (Application No. 39496/11). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181210.
European Court of Human Rights. Case of Balaskas v. Greece from November 5, 2020 (Application No. 73087/17). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-205545.
Голуб О. П. Медіакомпас: путівник професійного журналіста. Київ : Софія-А, 2016. 184 с.
Гончаренко О. А. Особливості захисту честі, гідності та ділової репутації в мережі Інтернет: практичний аспект. Державне будівництво та місцеве самоврядування. 2017. Вип. 34. С. 116–129.
Howie E. Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law. International Journal of Speech-Language Patholog. 2018. No. 20 (1). Р. 12–15. doi: doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612.
Kaminska N., Loshchykhin O., Romanova N. The role of the OSCE in ensuring gender equality into policies and practices. Fundamental and Applied Researches in Practice of Leading Scientific Schools. 2019. No. 34 (4). P. 87‒91. doi: 10.33531/farplss.2019.
Шпакович О., Шаламберідзе М. Правотворча діяльність міжнародних організацій. Науковий вісник Національної академії внутрішніх справ. 2020. № 3 (116). С. 108–114. doi: https://doi.org/10.33270/01201163.108.
Шурак С. П., Маковій В. П. Професійна честь та гідність працівника поліції. Південноукраїнський правничий часопис. 2017. № 3. С. 141–144.
Сухорольський П. Міжнародні стандарти забезпечення свободи вираження поглядів в умовах утвердження концепції позитивних обов’язків держави. Український часопис міжнародного права. 2015. № 1. С. 146–155.
U.S. Supreme Court. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/.
Abstract views: 603 PDF Downloads: 333
Copyright (c) 2021 Philosophical and Methodological Problems of Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- Authors reserve the right to authorship of their own work and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows other persons to freely distribute published work with mandatory reference to authors of the original work and the first publication of an article in this magazine.
- Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements on non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published in the journal (for example, to post an article in the institution's repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is maintained.
- The journal's policy allows and encourages the posting of articles by authors on the Internet (for example, in electronic storehouses of institutions or on personal websites), both before the submission of this manuscript to the editorial office and during its editorial processing, as this contributes to the creation of a productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work.