| Abstract [eng] |
Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights is devoted to the freedom of expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Article 8 of the Convention protects private and family life, home, correspondence of every individual. By implementing one Conventional right a problem of other right’s protection often occurs. It is a matter of great relevance while implementing Article 10 of the Convention which very often conflicts with Article 8 of the Convention. The fundamental principle which European Court of Human Rights invokes in his case- law is based on the view that freedom of expression which is guaranteed in Article 10 of the Convention, cannot violate the right to respect for one’s private life. European Court of Human Rights has not set down particular limits of the private life’s protection and freedom of expression. It means that in each case the Court has to examine the existing situation and its circumstances. So the principle of “interest balance” has to be applied while implementing Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in practice. It is essential to find the “reasonable balance” and to decide, which right guaranteed under the Convention will have the priority over another in each case. Firstly, the Court has to analyze these criterions: whether the freedom of expression satisfy the public’s interest to get particular information about certain facts or situation, whether this public’s interest is more important than protection of one’s private life, whether publication of certain information is justified under “pressing social needs”. That is why it is fundamental to follow the principles of proportionality, respect for one’s private life and necessity in democratic society. |
