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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll