Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
In [ case ], concerning an interference with freedom of expression under the ECHR, art 10(1) the ECtHR explained, on the basis that this was necessary for the 'protection of morals', that:

'By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of those requirements [of morality] as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them … Nevertheless, Article 10(2) does not give the Contracting States an unlimited power of appreciation. The court, which, with the Commission, is responsible for ensuring the observance of those States' engagements, is empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" or "penalty" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. The domestic margin of appreciation thus goes hand in hand with a European supervision.'

Answer
Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737

Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
In [ case ], concerning an interference with freedom of expression under the ECHR, art 10(1) the ECtHR explained, on the basis that this was necessary for the 'protection of morals', that:

'By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of those requirements [of morality] as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them … Nevertheless, Article 10(2) does not give the Contracting States an unlimited power of appreciation. The court, which, with the Commission, is responsible for ensuring the observance of those States' engagements, is empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" or "penalty" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. The domestic margin of appreciation thus goes hand in hand with a European supervision.'

Answer
?

Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
In [ case ], concerning an interference with freedom of expression under the ECHR, art 10(1) the ECtHR explained, on the basis that this was necessary for the 'protection of morals', that:

'By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of those requirements [of morality] as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them … Nevertheless, Article 10(2) does not give the Contracting States an unlimited power of appreciation. The court, which, with the Commission, is responsible for ensuring the observance of those States' engagements, is empowered to give the final ruling on whether a "restriction" or "penalty" is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. The domestic margin of appreciation thus goes hand in hand with a European supervision.'

Answer
Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737, concerning an interference with freedom of expression under the ECHR, art 10(1) the ECtHR explained, on the basis that this was necessary for the 'protection of morals', that: &#

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.