When can the state interfere with Article 10?

Question 1

When can a state body interefere with Article 10?

Answer 1

• If it is prescribed by law.
• If the aim is to protect: national security, public safety, prevention of crime, health and morals, peoples’ reputations, from disclosing confidential information or to maintain the imapartiality of the judiciary.
• If it is necessary.

Question 2

What did the ECtHR state in Oberver and Guardian v UK (1995)?

Answer 2

• ‘Necessary’ means there is an existence of a pressing social need.
• The burden of proof is on the state to prove they have met all three criterias.

Question 3

What are threats to national security?

Answer 3

• Organised crime.
• Trafficking.
• Terrorism.

Question 4

What did the ECtHR hold in Hajianastassiou v Greece (1992)?

Answer 4

Accessing private reports that contained sensitive information regarding military activity is a legitimate protection of national security.

Question 5

What are threats to the prevention of crime?

Answer 5

• Calls for violence.
• Misinformation being spread.

Question 6

What was ruled by the ECtHR in Surek v Turkey (1999)?

Answer 6

Inciting revenge through propaganda can be seen as promoting crime.

Question 7

What was ruled in Open Doors and Well Woman v Ireland (1992)?

Answer 7

A complete ban on women recieving information about abortions was a violation of Article 10.

Question 8

What happened in Bedat v Switzerland (2016) and what was held?

Answer 8

• The applicant was fined by the government for publishing personal information.
• The ECtHR held that to fine the applicant was not a breach of Article 10.

Question 9

What happened in Sunday Times v UK (1979)?

Answer 9

• There was an injunction against a newspaper which prevented the publishing of information relating to the thalidomide scandal.
• This was held to be a breach of Article 10 as it “did not correspond to a social need pressing enough to outweigh the public interest.”

Question 10

What happened in the Spycatcher Case?

Answer 10

• A former MI5 officer who worked for the British intellignece published his memoirs in a book titled ‘Spycatcher’.
• The British government sought to prevent the publication of the book in the UK.
• They argued that it contained sensitive information that could compromise national security.
• Wright was later sued by the British government for breach of confidence and for violating the Official Secrets Act.
• Wright argued that his disclosures were in the public interest.
• The House of Lords ruled that the British government could not prevent the publication as much of the information contained in the book was already in the public domain.

Question 11

What happened in Axel Springer AG v Germany?

Answer 11

• Axel Springer AG’s newspaper published a passage voicing suspicions that a former politician had vacated his post solely to accept a lucrative position.
• The ECtHR found a violation of Axel Springer AG’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10.
• This is due to Axel Springer AG not exceeding the limits of its journalistic freedom in publishing the passage.