header-logo header-logo

11 August 2011 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Against the Convention

Susan Nash provides an end of term report on human rights developments

The applicant in Uj v Hungary (App No 23954/10) complained that his conviction for libel was a breach of Art 10 (freedom of expression). He was a journalist who had published an article in a national daily newspaper criticising the quality of a well-known variety of Hungarian wine produced by a state-owned company. In his article he stated that “hundreds of thousands of Hungarians drink [this] shit with pride”.

The national court found that although the applicant was entitled to express an opinion about the wine, characterising it as “shit” was unnecessarily insulting and infringed the wine producer’s right to a good reputation.

There was no dispute that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Further, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) observed that the wine company had the right to defend itself against defamatory allegations, and that there was a general interest in protecting the commercial success and viability of companies. However, there was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll