The aim of this article is to examine how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ‘the Court’) has weighed up the relative claims of the freedom of expression and the right to private life. The evaluation is made by scrutinizing the practice of the ECtHR, and especially two Grand Chamber judgments (von Hannover No. 2 v. Germany, 7.2.2012 and Axel Springer v. Germany, 7.2.2012), where the Court laid down the criteria according to which the balancing between those two rights is made, and analysing how the Court has thereafter applied the criteria it laid down in those cases. The central argument of this article is that whilst the criteria – that are mentioned and applied in the two Grand Chamber judgments as well as other case-law – are relevant and reasonable, their application in the ECtHR’s court praxis has not always been entirely coherent. Equally, the application has at times been inconsistent and variable. And at times the ECtHR has exceeded its brief to guarantee the implementation of human rights and instead acted like the court of last instance.
|Lehti||Communications Law (Haywards Heath)|
|Tila||Julkaistu - 2 heinäkuuta 2017|
|OKM-julkaisutyyppi||A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä, vertaisarvioitu|
- 513 Oikeustiede