Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Unjustified obligation to publish decisions of the media self-regulatory body, which disciplined the applicants for breaching requirements of journalists' and publishers' ethics in relation to two articles on matters of public interest • Interferences not "necessary in a democratic society"
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Arnfinn Bårdsen , President , Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Saadet Yüksel, Diana Sârcu, Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
the applications (nos. 84048/17 and 84051/17 ) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Lithuanian national, Mr Eduardas Eigirdas ("the first applicant"), and VĮ "Demokratijos plėtros fondas" ("the second applicant"), on 11 December 2017;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.