The European Court of Human Rights and Internet-Related Cases

Author:

Wiśniewski Adam1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Gdańsk , Poland

Abstract

Abstract The Internet-related cases coming to the European Court of Human Rights provide a good illustration of the challenges posed to the protection of human rights as based on the European Convention of Human Rights drafted in 1950. Considering that the Convention is a 70-year-old instrument, the Strasbourg Court has to deal with these cases using the body of principles and interpretation methods and techniques that has been developed so far, and in particular the ‘living instrument’ doctrine. In this study I propose to explore some main threads in the Court’s jurisprudence on Internet-related cases, outlining the specific nature of Internet-related cases, discussing the problem of rights connected with the Internet as well as the impact of the Internet on such classical rights as freedom of expression and the right to privacy. I conclude that the Internet-related case law of the Convention is in a process of constant development. The Strasbourg Court has demonstrated that it is capable of dealing with Internet-related cases based on general Convention norms and using its well-developed interpretation techniques. The striking feature of Strasbourg’s case law is the ECtHR’s recognition of the considerable importance of the Internet as regards the exercise of freedom of expression, and in particular freedom to seek and access information. Although the ECtHR regards the Internet as a communication medium, however, it recognises its specific features which affect the performance of rights protected by the Convention as well as dangers it poses for the protection of human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Publisher

University of Bialystok

Reference22 articles.

1. Best M.L., Can the Internet Be a Human Right? (in:) S. Hick, E.F. Halpin and E. Hoskins (eds.), Human Rights and the Internet, New York 2000.

2. Decision of the ECtHR of 11 March 2014 as to the admissibility of the case of Akdeniz v. Turkey, application no. 20877/10.

3. Decision of the ECtHR of 18 October 2005 as to the admissibility of the case of Perrin v. the United Kingdom.

4. Directive 2000/31 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market.

5. Garlicki L. (ed.), Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności. Tom I, Komentarz do artykułów 1–18, Warsaw 2010.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3