The Freedom of Expression in the Media and the Slovak Judiciary

  • Andrej Školkay
Chapter

Abstract

Balancing the freedom of expression against other fundamental rights is a challenging exercise. The Slovak judicial system shows significant drawbacks in this regard, and in the swift and fair execution of justice in general. This chapter analyses and documents judicial approaches pertaining to the protection of freedom of expression in the media and journalists’ free speech, as evidenced in the practice of the Slovak courts in the past five years or so.1

Keywords

Lower Court Supreme Court Constitutional Court Media Freedom Early Jurisprudence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 12.
    See ECtHR, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (appl. no. 41262/05), 26 July 2011; Radio Twist, a.s. v. Slovakia (appl. no. 62202/00), 19 December 2006; Klein v. Slovakia (appl. no. 72208/01), 31 October 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 13.
    See ECtHR, Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH v. Austria (appl. no. 46389/99), 19 January 2006; Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v. Austria (no. 5) (appl. no. 39069/97), 11 December 2003; Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (appl. no. 10520/02), 14 December 2006; Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (appl. no. 35841/02), 7 December 2006; Kobenter and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (appl. 60899/00), 2 November 2006; Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (appl. 60899/00), 2 November 2006; Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer v. Austria (appl. 19710/02), 2 November 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 17.
    ECtHR, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland (appl. no. 53678/00), 16 November 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 39.
    See ECtHR, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom, 20 EHRR 442, 13 July 1995; Sorguç v. Turkey (appl. no. 17089/03), 23 June 2009; Filipovic v. Serbia (appl. no. 27935/05), 20 November 2007; Steel and Morris v. UK, [2005] EMLR 314, 15 February 2005; Público-Comunicaçao Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal (appl. no. 39324/07), 7 December 2010. See also Wilfling and Kovácechová, 2011: 23–29.Google Scholar
  5. 40.
    ECtHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom (appl. no. 5493/72), 7 December 1976; Prager & Oberschlick v. Austria (appl. no. 15974/90), 26 March 1995; Bladet Tromso & Stensaas v. Norway (appl. no. 21980/93), 20 May 1999; Lingens v. Austria (appl. no. 9815/8), 8 July 1986; Castells v. Spain (appl. no. 11798/85), 23 April 1992; Feldek v. Slovakia (appl. no. 29032), 12 July 2001; The Observer and Guardian v. the UK (appl. no. 13585/88), 18 February 2008; Jerusalem v. Austria (appl. no. 26958/95), 7 February 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 41.
    ECtHR, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway (appl. no. 23118/93), 25 November 1999; Sürek v. Turkey (appl. no. 24735/94), 8 July 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 42.
    ECtHR, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, above; Sabou and Pircalab v. Romania (appl. no. 46572/99), 28 September 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Andrej Školkay 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrej Školkay

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations