Imposing Costs on Newspaper in Successful Source-Protection Case Did Not Violate Article 10

Imposing Costs on Newspaper in Successful Source-Protection Case Did Not Violate Article 10 | Strasbourg Observers: "As with all admissibility decisions, while we know the Fifth Section’s ruling was “by a majority,” the individual votes are not disclosed, and it is therefore important to explore whether there are any weaknesses in the majority’s reasoning. First, the majority opinion opens with the statement that it “does not consider” the costs ruling as an “interference” with Article 10. But this statement is not really followed up by an explanation, and the Court then proceeds to analyse the case under Article 10; so it is not quite clear how seriously the Court takes its own opening statement. But nonetheless, the statement seems to conflict with the Court’s own case law: take MGN v UK, where a newspaper had violated the Article 8 rights of a public figure, or in other words, had not exercised its freedom of expression in a “legitimate” manner, and yet, the Court considered the costs ruling “interfered” with the newspaper’s right to free expression. And similarly, in Kasabova v Bulgaria, a journalist had criminally defamed a public official, a conclusion the Court agreed with, but then went on to hold that the costs rulings “interfered” with her freedom of expression." 'via Blog this'