European Convention on Human Rights
Article 1 - respecting rights
Article 1 simply binds the signatory parties to secure the rights under the other Articles of the Convention "within their jurisdiction". In exceptional cases, "jurisdiction" may not be confined to a Contracting State's own national territory; the obligation to secure Convention rights then also extends to foreign territory, such as occupied land in which the State exercises effective control. In Loizidou v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that jurisdiction of member states to the convention extended to areas under that state's effective control as a result of military action.
[7]
Article 8 - privacy
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. This may be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises positive [16] obligations: whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced parent to his/her child).
Article 10 - expression
Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for: interests of national security territorial integrity or public safety prevention of disorder or crime protection of health or morals protection of the reputation or the rights of others preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
Lingens v. Austria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Lingens v Austria)
Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 was a 1986 European Court of Human Rights case that placed restrictions on libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Context
Lingens was fined for publishing in a Vienna magazine comments about the behavior of the Austrian Chancellor, such as 'basest opportunism', 'immoral' and 'undignified'. Under the Austrian criminal code the only defense was proof of the truth of these statements. Lingens could not prove the truth of these value judgments.
Judgment
The European Court of Human Rights stated that a careful distinction needed to be made between facts and value judgments/opinions. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The facts on which Lingens founded his value judgments were not disputed; nor was his good faith. Since it was impossible to prove the truth of value judgments, the requirement of the relevant provisions of the Austrian criminal code was impossible of fulfilment and infringed article 10 of the Convention.
The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153, the "Spycatcher" case. Bowman v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 1, distributing vast quantities of anti-abortion material in contravention to election spending laws Communist Party v Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 1211 Appleby v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 38, protests in a private shopping mall
Comprimy ? Decision is still under the jurisdiction of the domestic court.
There are other provisions in the Charter which mention human rights;25 but all of them are weak and there is no enforcement mechanism laid down. There is also Article 2(7) stating that nothing in the Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.26 The Declaration merely recommends states to keep it in mind and to striveby progressive [not immediate] measuresto secure universal and effective recognition and observance of its provisions. 7. Following a complaint by the Prime Minister on 17 May 2003, TTV was prosecuted (1) for defamatory and insulting allegations toward the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of justice, (2) for inciting an uprising and spreading hatred amongst the population, (3) for publishing a defamatory, insulting and obscene cartoon, (4) for organising and/or promoting an unauthorised public demonstration and (5) for anonymously posting content on a website which is an offence under Turustein Criminal Law.
