Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Last updated
Clause on the right to freedom of expression
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression and information. A fundamental aspect of this right is the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas, even if the receiver of such information does not share the same opinions or views as the provider.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, meaning it can be interfered with by states and other public authority bodies.[2]
However, each state is allowed a margin of appreciation. An acceptance of varying historical, legal, political, and cultural differences, which may lead the application of such freedom to be slightly varied in its nature despite the widespread adoption of the article. Such differences in the application have been allowed as long as the freedom of expression is as found in The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991). "Narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established" by national authorities.[3]
Voorhoof and Gannie[4] suggest that for a state to legally interfere with a person's freedom of expression they need to pass the 'triple test' of conditions in Article 10(2): such interferences have to be laid out in the nation's national law, be justified through the coverage of one of the objectives listed in the latter half of the section, and necessary in a democratic society.[5] Although by attempting to have a uniform application through the request of the 'triple test' and narrow interpretation of the article's content in individual national circumstances it has led some states through a belief the European court is being too stringent to neglect their duties and responsibilities of protection as required by the convention.[6]
Importantly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recognises the development and use of the internet to exercise this right and also the restrictions on it also being able to be justified by the same objectives.[7]
Although widely accepted as a right within the European Convention, it is the First Amendment within the US constitution that is synonymous globally with freedom of expression and speech. Without closer inspection, it could be suggested that both are covering the same right, just in differing contexts; however, this would not be an accurate assessment.[8]
The structure of the freedoms in the US Constitution and the European Convention as revealed by Bleich[9] are different from each other and arguably cover opposite things. "The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained."[9]
Similarly, Docherty[10] suggests that institutionally, the US First Amendment through the nature of the American judicial system and the difficulty of constitutional reform affords greater protection as well as fewer restrictions on the freedom of speech; whereas through the margin of appreciation and the reliance upon members' constitutions being sufficiently robust, freedom of expression within the ECtHR does not directly afford the same level of protection of expression to citizens.
The main point of similarity the two sources of freedom of expression share is that they are both not absolute and can be limited; this is also enhanced through the varying criteria by which they can be restricted also being very similar.[11] Namely, those listed in Article 10(2) include "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime".[12] It is this that often leads to a common belief they are one of the same by many of the population. However it should be acknowledged as above that achieving such limitation is a point of difference between the two judicial systems and legislation.
Hate speech
Hate speech is highly contextual and subjective in terms of content and victim, which makes it very difficult to legislate against on a national and especially on a multinational level. As revealed by Foster,[who?] Article 10 is applicable to all forms of speech and expressions, but the ECtHR as highlighted by Handyside v United Kingdom[13] demands a level of tolerance and pluralism of the exercise of the same freedom of expression right of others who share views which may not be shared by the receiver of the information or opinions.[non-primary source needed]
However, despite the expectancy of citizens to exercise tolerance, it may be difficult to achieve not only as stated before due to the subjective nature of offence being taken but also the complexity of the ECHR failing to define hate speech within either Article 10 or any other convention, ruling or European wide statute to date.[14] This could be explained through the need to provide states with a margin of appreciation, due to varying cultures finding offence to differing things.
It has been seen as an area of great debate that Article 10 and the wider ECHR, not having a definition of hate speech within its content, could leave the fundamental concepts of freedom of expression and freedom of speech to be abused by its users.[15] But any limitations on freedom of expression would damage a crucial right of those who live within a democracy, as some[weaselwords] deem it to be counter what is laid out in Article 10(2) as not being necessary in a democratic society.[9]
The licensing exception
The provision about "licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises", i.e. the state's right to license the media companies, was included because of the limited number of available frequencies and the fact that, at that time, most European states had a monopoly of broadcasting and television. Later court decisions held that due to "the technical progress in the last decades, the justification of these restrictions cannot be made by reference to the number of available frequencies and channels." The public monopolies within the audiovisual media were seen by the court as contrary to Article 10, primarily because they cannot provide a plurality of sources of information.[16]
The court also held that devices for receiving broadcasting information, such as satellite dishes, do not fall under the restriction provided for in the last sentence of the first paragraph.[16]
Connections to Articles 8, 9 and 11
It has been noted by a number of sources that when examining the ECHR articles those from Article 8 to Article 11 have a very comparable structure allowing for a similar examination by the ECtHR for when there has been a possible breach.[6][10][example needed] In the same way as Article 10, similarly Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) briefly describe the convention right and within the second section of the article describe the restrictions that can be used by a state or public authority body that can be imposed upon the right.[17]
Van Dijk et al. discuss how within Article 8 through the concept of private correspondence expression of an opinion can often take the form of the correspondence and so there needs to be adequate protection for the privacy of the correspondence and the expression within it from state interference. In a similar way, the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in particular the latter is a form of self-expression. Consequently, Article 10 covers such expression too due to its wide scope. Lastly, expression is a vital aspect of freedom of assembly and association as "Demonstration always constitutes an expression of opinion."[6]
Case law
Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) (Article 10 stated obiter to cover even speech that may "offend, shock or disturb"; conviction for obscenity was nonetheless not in breach)
Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407 (statements of opinion, rather than fact, are protected and cannot be actionable as defamatory)
Mueller and Others v Switzerland (1988), application number 10737/84 (conviction for obscenity was not in breach; the vagueness in "obscene" was accepted as inevitable given the necessity of it changing with charging moral standards in order to be "necessary in a democratic society")
Jersild v. Denmark (1994) (conviction for reporting racist statements that constituted hate crimes was a breach)
Bowman v United Kingdom [1998] ECHR 4, (1998) 26 EHRR 1 (excessively tight restrictions on political campaign spending were in breach)
Appleby v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 38 (the courts permitting the private owner of a shopping centre to ban collection of signatures for a petition was not in breach)
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2005), ancillary to the 'McLibel case' (English courts were in breach by finding conduct to be defamatory that should have been protected under Article 10)
Yildirim v Turkey (2012) (Turkish block on Google websites was in breach because it was not reasonably foreseeable or in accordance with the rule of law)[18]
MGN Ltd v United Kingdom (2011) 39401/04, the Naomi Campbell success fee case (success fees, designed to improve access to justice, would be an acceptable interference with Article 10 rights under part 2, but in this case were excessive and not justified for this purpose in the case of a wealthy complainant)
Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015) (civil liability for defamatory comments posted on defendant's website by anonymous third parties, despite their removal, was not a breach)
Peruzzi v. Italy (2015)[19] (fine for criminal defamation of a judge held not to be in breach as "necessary in a democratic society" to "uphold the authority and impartiality of the judiciary")
E.S. v. Austria (2018) (fine for "disparaging religious doctrines" by calling Muhammad a paedophile was not in breach)
See also
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen – Article XI states: "The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."
↑ Costigan, R.; Stone, R. (2018). Civil Liberties & Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0198744276.
1 2 3 Van Dijk P, Van Hoof F, Van Rijn A, Zwaak L, eds. (2018). Theory and Practice of the Convention on Human Rights (5thed.). Cambridge: Intersetia. p.782. ISBN978-1780684949.
↑ Fish, S. (1999). There's no such thing as Free Speech... and it's a good thing too. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0195093834.
1 2 3 Bleich, E. (2014). "Freedom of Expression versus Racist Hate Speech: Explaining Differences Between High Court Regulations in the USA and Europe". Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 40 (2): 285. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2013.851476. S2CID9877707.
↑ Holler, B. & Hoboken, J. (2019). "Freedom of Expression: A Comparative Summary of United States and European Law". The Transatlantic Working Group Papers Series pp. 1–19
↑ Handyside v United Kingdom 5493/72 [1976] ECHR 5
↑ Chetty, N.; Alathur, S. (2018). "Hate speech review in the context of online social networks". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 40: 108–118. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.003.
↑ Foster, S. (2013). "Are we becoming afraid of Free Speech?". Coventry Law Journal. 18: 92–99.
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The court is based in Strasbourg, France.
The margin of appreciation is a legal doctrine with a wide scope in international human rights law. It was developed by the European Court of Human Rights to judge whether a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights should be sanctioned for limiting the enjoyment of rights. The doctrine allows the court to reconcile practical differences in implementing the articles of the convention. Such differences create a limited right for contracting parties "to derogate from the obligations laid down in the Convention". The doctrine also reinforces the role of the European Convention as a supervisory framework for human rights. In applying that discretion, the court's judges must take into account differences between domestic laws of the contracting parties as they relate to substance and procedure. The margin of appreciation doctrine contains concepts that are analogous to the principle of subsidiarity, which occurs in the unrelated field of EU law. The purposes of the margin of appreciation are to balance individual rights with national interests and to resolve any potential conflicts. It has been suggested that the European Court should generally refer to the State's decision, as it is an international court, instead of a bill of rights.
Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 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". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.
In the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 protects the right to life. The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 and 13, for those parties who are also parties to those protocols.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.
Handyside v United Kingdom (5493/72) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that:
Freedom of expression ... is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.
Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345 is a landmark European Court of Human Rights case concerning Article 11 ECHR and the right to engage in collective bargaining. It affirmed the fundamental right of workers to engage in collective bargaining and take collective action to achieve that end.
Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states:
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows contracting states to derogate from certain rights guaranteed by the Convention in a time of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. He was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined 3000 Swiss francs.
Bowman v United Kingdom [1998] ECHR 4 is a case in the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the legitimate limits on campaign finance spending. A majority of the court held that countries joined to the European Convention on Human Rights may be required to permit minimal levels of campaign spending. The minority held that the United Kingdom's near total ban on election-related spending should be regarded as compatible with ECHR article 10.
The right to personal identity is recognised in international law through a range of declarations and conventions. From as early as birth, an individual's identity is formed and preserved by registration or being bestowed with a name. However, personal identity becomes more complex as an individual develops a conscience. But human rights exist to defend and protect individuality, as quoted by Law Professor Jill Marshall "Human rights law exist to ensure that individual lifestyle choices are protected from majoritarian or populist infringement." Despite the complexity of personal identity, it is preserved and encouraged through privacy, personality rights and the right to self-expression.
The right to family life is the right of all individuals to have their established family life respected, and to have and maintain family relationships. This right is recognised in a variety of international human rights instruments, including Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Media freedom in the European Union is a fundamental right that applies to all member states of the European Union and its citizens, as defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. Within the EU enlargement process, guaranteeing media freedom is named a "key indicator of a country's readiness to become part of the EU".
Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 362 is United Kingdom constitutional law and a UK, European and international human rights case, on political spending at elections. It held that the United Kingdom's ban on spending money on political advertising, under the Communications Act 2003 section 321(2), was fully compatible with freedom of expression under the ECHR article 10.
"Necessary in a democratic society" is a test found in Articles 8–11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that the state may impose restrictions of these rights only if such restrictions are "necessary in a democratic society" and proportional to the legitimate aims enumerated in each article. According to the Council of Europe's handbook on the subject, the phrase is "arguably one of the most important clauses in the entire Convention". Indeed, the Court has itself written that "the concept of a democratic society... prevails throughout the Convention". The purpose of making such claims justiciable is to ensure that the restriction is actually necessary, rather than enacted for political expediency, which is not allowed. Articles 8–11 of the convention are those that protect right to family life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association respectively. Along with the other tests which are applied to these articles, the restrictions on Articles 8–11 have been described as "vast limitations", in contrast to American law which recognizes nearly unlimited right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
