header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 October 2011 / Susan Nash
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Taking liberties?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Susan Nash rounds up the latest human rights developments

The applicants in Palomo Sanchez v Spain (App Nos 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06) were sacked for publishing a trade union newsletter which contained offensive words and lewd cartoons featuring two employees who had testified against them in an employment tribunal. The newsletter was distributed to employees and displayed on a notice board. Relying on Art 10 (freedom of expression) and Art 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained that the real reason for their dismissal had been their trade union activities. Noting that the offending material had been published in a trade union newsletter and distributed at the applicants’ workplace, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered whether this sanction was proportionate. The ECtHR observed that the extent of acceptable criticism was narrower in regard to private individuals than for politicians or civil servants acting in their public duty. Furthermore, the offending material was aimed, not directly at the company, but against the company’s employees. However, the ECtHR did not share the Spanish

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll