header-logo header-logo

17 June 2010 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Human rights & wrongs

Stardom, slogans & surveillance: an international update by Susan Nash

The applicant in Cox v Turkey (App No 2933/03) had been employed as a university lecturer in Turkey during the 1980s. She was expelled and banned from re-entering the country on account of statements made to staff and students about Kurdish and Armenian issues. Relying on Art 9 (freedom of religion), the applicant complained that she was subjected to unjustified treatment on account of her religion, and that expressing opinions at a university, where freedom of expression should be unlimited, could not be used as a justification for these sanctions. Having regard to the applicant’s failure to submit any material documenting her claim that reports had been compiled about her on account of her religious activities, and having regard to the reasons for the re-entry ban provided by the national authorities, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered it appropriate to examine the complaints under Art 10 (freedom of expression).

Convention obligations

Although the right of a non-national to enter

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll