Activity Details (ID# 13134)

Activity Synopsis

This training session was organised as part of the Training for trainers programme on the European Convention on Human Rights for Kosovo in 2005. The first objective of this training was to provide an overview of the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 10 of the ECHR. The second objective was to review the issue of freedom of expression and the legitimate restrictions to this freedom, as well as the interaction between Article 10 and Article 8 (defamation, insult, criticism of public figures, privacy and incitement to hatred). The third objective was to address access to information, protection of sources, state secrecy and whistle-blowing. 

The training was well organised by the Kosovo Judicial Institute and the Council of Europe Office in Pristina.

The Council of Europe experts avoided lecturing and instead concentrated on case studies and on exchanging information with the participants, sharing their knowledge on the application of Article 8 and Article 10 of the ECHR. This allowed the experts to identify gaps in the knowledge of the participants and to deal with only those areas that needed to be covered.

The experts reminded the participants that the European Court of Human Rights applies a test to measures that restrict freedom of expression. One of the experts summarised this test in the following manner:
1. is there an interference (i.e. is there a measure that restricts freedom of expression)?
2. is the interference lawful (i.e prescribed by law, accessible, predictable and foreseeable)?
3. is there a legitimate aim (i.e. does it reply to a pressing social need?)
4. is it necessary in a democratic society (i.e. the principle of proportionality: the restriction must be proportionate to the aim pursued)?

The participants explained the working of their legal system and debated on whether or not the above-mentioned four questions have always been followed correctly.

The discussions also addressed the following issues:
• hate speech, notably the main questions to ask before censoring free speech: what was published? Who published it? How was it published? Is it really inciting hatred?
• access to information and its limitations – the state’s role;
• protection of sources;
• state secrecy;
• whistle-blowing.
 

The participants informed the Council of Europe that they found this practical approach very useful, especially in the light of the fact that they already had a basic knowledge of the ECHR and that this practical approach helped them to better understand the application of Articles 8 and 10. 

Judges and prosecutors 

Ms Ingrid BLAAUW, Judge, Regional Court of Zwolle and Lelystad (The Netherlands); Ms Lucy MOORMAN, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers, London (UK) 

Ms Tanja GERWIEN, Media Division, DG II