Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Kychenok, a lawyer practising in Kyiv; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the applicant’s freedom of expression to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

  58778/19, 58787/19 and 62966/19) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

  766/19) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 December 2018

Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 35555/19) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

  45123/20) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 September

  51856/14) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 July 2014

  38549/16) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 &#

    The general principles of the Court’s case-law for assessing the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression have been summarised in Bédat v.

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

The general principles for assessing the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression in this particular context were restated in Radobuljac v.

  33513/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 February 2013

    The Court has previously found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in a large number of cases concerning freedom of the media in Russia for the reason that the domestic courts had

    The case concerns freedom of expression issues. The applicant is a journalist, a lawyer and a human rights defender.

  78618/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 November 2013

    The Court notes that the courts’ sentence constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.