1. MEDIA LAW Copenhagen University Session 7 Dirk VOORHOOF Ghent University www.psw.ugent.be/dv (->contact) www.psw.ugent.be/dv

2. Recent restrictive trends in case law ECtHR Seminar in ECtHR Strasbourg 10 October 2008 Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France (GC), 22 October 2007 Stoll v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber), 10 December 2007 Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, 14 February 2008 Alithia Publ. Company Ltd. & Constantinides v. Cyprus, 22 May 2008 Backes v. Luxembourg, 8 July 2008 Soulas a.o. v. France, 10 July 2008 Flux (n°6) v. Moldova, 29 July 2008 Cuc Pascu v. Romania, 16 September 2008 Petrina v. Romania, 14 October 2008 and … Denis Leroy v. France, 2 October 2008, “Reasons for serious concern regarding the future of freedom of expression in Europe” See http://www-ircm.u-strasbg.fr/seminaire_oct2008/index.htmhttp://www-ircm.u-strasbg.fr/seminaire_oct2008/index.htm

3. Interesting recent judgments and decisions  ECtHR 10/3/2009 Times Newspapers v. UK (Internet Publication Rule not in breach with Art. 10)  ECtHR DECISION 10/2/2009 The Wall Street Journal a.o. v. UK (onus on defendant to give evidence of defamatory allegations, presumption of falsity is not incompatible with Art. 10)

4. Other interesting recent judgments  ECtHR 02/12/2008 UK v. Finland (Internet, right of anonymity based on FOE is not absolute, breach of Art. 8)  ECtHR 16/12/2008 Khursid Mustafa and Tarzabachi v. Sweden (Satellite antenne installation, right to recieve TV-programs, end of tenancy agreement, violation of Article 10)  ECtHR 5/3/2009 Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. France (Restrictions/sanctions (indirect) advertising for tobacco products no violation of Art. 10, public health, minors)

5. More interesting recent judgments  ECtHR 18/12/2008 Kasakov v. Russia (Court order to make public apology is in breach with Art. 10)  ECtHR 26/2/2009 Kudeshkina v. Russia (whistleblower, judge, manipulation, interviews in media, dismissal, breach of Article 10)

6. And one more particular recent judgment  ECtHR 03/02/2009 Women on Waves v. Portugal (concerning the Portuguese authorities’ decision to prohibit the ship Borndiep, which had been chartered with a view to staging activities promoting the decriminalisation of abortion, from entering Portuguese territorial waters. The ship was banned from entering Portuguese territorial waters by a ministerial order, on the basis of maritime law and Portuguese health laws, and its entry was blocked by a Portuguese warship. Violation of Art. 10)