Abstract
In few of the many cases where the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of Article 10, the Court has simultaneously stated that a specific restriction or sanction has an actual or a potential chilling effect for press freedom. The Article examines by way of the Court’s case law the notion of ‘chilling effect’. It is concluded that ‘chilling effect’ is a strong notion reserved for cases where something genuine is at stake. The notion points beyond the case at hand and has a negative impact on the applicant’s future task or – in its most severe form – a negative impact on the press as such to the outmost detriment of the public debate, the control of the establishment, and, thereby, to the impairment of society as a whole.
Highlights
Freedom of expression – and freedom to receive and impart information – are protected in Article 10 (1) in the European Convention of Human Rights
If the case is a media case and it concerns a matter of great public interest, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasised that there is only little scope under Article 10 (2) to restrict freedom of expression.[2]
It is important to take into consideration that the reading of the term ‘chilling effect’ must not amount to an over-interpretation since one can never be entirely certain that the Court, with all its chambers, populated with judges from all over Europe, educated in different legal cultures, et cetera, always is completely stringent in its use of a specific term in cases, such as the current, where the term has not been made into a ‘Convention notion’
Summary
Freedom of expression – and freedom to receive and impart information – are protected in Article 10 (1) in the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention). If the case is a media case and it concerns a matter of great public interest, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has emphasised that there is only little scope under Article 10 (2) to restrict freedom of expression.[2]. The Court has found violations of Article 10 in relatively many media cases In some of these cases the Court has stated that a specific restriction or sanction does amount to a violation of Article 10, it has an actual or has potential chilling effect for press freedom.[3] Due to that, the Court’s scrutiny is (even more) intrusive. To set the right background and context, the Article will, begin with a brief review of the rules on the freedom of expression of the press and provide some notes on the Court’s common practice in media cases.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
