human rights session 9 - freedom of expression human rights 9 - there is no speech nor language,...

Human Rights Session 9 - Freedom of expression

Human rights 9 - Human rights 9 - There is no speech nor There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard: language, where their voice is not heard:

Freedom of expressionFreedom of expression

Pavel MolekPavel Molek


HistoryHistory

„„I disapprove of what you say, but I will I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.defend to the death your right to say it.““

„„Congress shall make no law respecting an Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.redress of grievances.““

Why it was number one?Why it was number one?


InstrumentsInstruments

UDHR UDHR Article 1Article 19 (!): 9 (!): „„Everyone has Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of any media and regardless of frontiers. frontiers. ““


Instruments:Instruments: ICCPR: ICCPR: „„Article 19Article 191. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall

include freedom toinclude freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it specialwith it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shallcertain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of

public health orpublic health or morals.morals.

Article 20Article 201. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes

incitement toincitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.law.““


Instruments:Instruments: ECHR:ECHR:„„Article 10Article 10Freedom of expressionFreedom of expression1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall

include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.enterprises. - outfashioned- outfashioned

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and rresponsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, esponsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.““


Instruments: EUInstruments: EU EU Charter:EU Charter:„„Article 11Article 11Freedom of expression and informationFreedom of expression and information1. Everyone has the right to freedom of 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of

expression. This right shall include freedom expression. This right shall include freedom to holdto hold opinions and to receive and impartopinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference information and ideas without interference by public authority andby public authority and regardless of regardless of frontiers.frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.shall be respected.““

Is there any difference between EU and ECHR?Is there any difference between EU and ECHR?


Instruments: EUInstruments: EU How can be freedom of expression in scope of How can be freedom of expression in scope of EU law?EU law? Today the scope of Today the scope of Article 51Article 51 of the Charter: of the Charter:

„„Field of applicationField of application1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, 1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies ofbodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when theywhen they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles andrespect the rights, observe the principles and promote the promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits ofand respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.conferred on it in the Treaties.

2. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union 2. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of thelaw beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in thedefined in the T Treaties.reaties.““

Case C-260/89 ERTCase C-260/89 ERT


Instruments: EUInstruments: EU Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925:Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925:ERT, a Greek radio station and television company, ERT, a Greek radio station and television company,

enjoyed exclusive broadcasting rightsenjoyed exclusive broadcasting rights under a Greek under a Greek statute. It sought an injunction against an statute. It sought an injunction against an information company and Mr.information company and Mr. Kouvelas, the Mayor of Kouvelas, the Mayor of Thessaloniki, who had set up a rival television Thessaloniki, who had set up a rival television station. Thestation. The respondent argued that ERT’s exclusive respondent argued that ERT’s exclusive rights infringed the free movement and competitionrights infringed the free movement and competition provisions of EC law. The Greekprovisions of EC law. The Greek government invoked government invoked Articles 45 and 55 EC which allowed itArticles 45 and 55 EC which allowed it to impose to impose restrictions for reasons of public policy. restrictions for reasons of public policy. Mayor of Mayor of ThessalonikiThessaloniki counter-argued that these could not be counter-argued that these could not be invoked as the conduct violated Article 10 ECHR invoked as the conduct violated Article 10 ECHR relating to freedom of expression.relating to freedom of expression.


Instruments: EUInstruments: EU„„41. With regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human 41. With regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human

Rights, Rights, …… it must first be pointed out that, as the Court has it must first be pointed out that, as the Court has consistently held, fundamentalconsistently held, fundamental rights form an integral part of the rights form an integral part of the general principles of law, the observance of which it ensures. Forgeneral principles of law, the observance of which it ensures. For that purpose the Court draws inspiration from the cthat purpose the Court draws inspiration from the coonstitutional nstitutional traditions common to the Membertraditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines States and from the guidelines supplied by international treaties for the protection of human supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights onrights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories they are signatories …… The European The European Convention on Human Rights Convention on Human Rights has special significance in that respect (has special significance in that respect (……). ).

42. As the Court has held (42. As the Court has held (……), it has no power to), it has no power to examine the examine the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of national rules which donational rules which do not fall within the scope of Community not fall within the scope of Community law. On the other hand, where such rules do fall within thelaw. On the other hand, where such rules do fall within the scope scope of Community law, and reference is made to the Court for a of Community law, and reference is made to the Court for a preliminary ruling, it must providepreliminary ruling, it must provide all the criteria of interpretation all the criteria of interpretation needed by the national court to determine whether those rules areneeded by the national court to determine whether those rules are compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures and which derive inthe Court ensures and which derive in particular from the particular from the European Convention on Human Rights.European Convention on Human Rights.


Instruments: EUInstruments: EU43. 43. In particular, where a Member State relies on the combined In particular, where a Member State relies on the combined

provisions of Articles 56 and 66 inprovisions of Articles 56 and 66 in order to justify rules which order to justify rules which are likely to obstruct the exercise of the freedom to provide are likely to obstruct the exercise of the freedom to provide services, suchservices, such justification, provided for by Community law, justification, provided for by Community law, must be interpreted in the light of the general principlesmust be interpreted in the light of the general principles of of law and in particular of fundamental rights.law and in particular of fundamental rights. Thus the national Thus the national rules in question can fall under therules in question can fall under the exceptions provided for by the exceptions provided for by the combined provisions of Articles 56 and 66 only if they are compatiblecombined provisions of Articles 56 and 66 only if they are compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which is ensured by with the fundamental rights the observance of which is ensured by the Court.the Court.

44. It follows that in such a case it is for the national court, and if 44. It follows that in such a case it is for the national court, and if necessary, the Court of Justice tonecessary, the Court of Justice to appraise the application of those appraise the application of those provisions having regard to all the rules of Community law, includingprovisions having regard to all the rules of Community law, including freedom of expression, as embodied in Article 10 of the European freedom of expression, as embodied in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as aConvention on Human Rights, as a general principle of law the general principle of law the observance of which is ensured by the Court.observance of which is ensured by the Court.““

ECJ: C-159/90 - ECJ: C-159/90 - The Society for the Protection of The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and othersothers


StructureStructure

FFreedom to hold opinions reedom to hold opinions (a contrario (a contrario newspeak and crimethink)newspeak and crimethink)

to receive information and ideas to receive information and ideas ((Open Open Door Counselling v. Ireland 1992 Door Counselling v. Ireland 1992 or ECJor ECJ - - GroganGrogan))

to to impart information and ideas impart information and ideas (including dead authors…?)(including dead authors…?)

+ to request information (+ to request information (Guerra and Guerra and others v. Italy 1992others v. Italy 1992 in scope of Art. 8 to in scope of Art. 8 to get information about chemical factory)? get information about chemical factory)?


Forms of expressionForms of expression What forms can you think about?What forms can you think about? Forms in ECHRForms in ECHR

Written and spoken word (freedom of speech), particularly newspaper (tradition) Written and spoken word (freedom of speech), particularly newspaper (tradition) Observer and Guardian v. U.K. (1991)Observer and Guardian v. U.K. (1991)

TV programmes: Hodgson v. U.K. (1987)TV programmes: Hodgson v. U.K. (1987) Radio broadcasting: Autronic AG v. Switzerland (1990)Radio broadcasting: Autronic AG v. Switzerland (1990) Movies: Wingrove v. U.K. (1996)Movies: Wingrove v. U.K. (1996) Paintings: Müller v. Switzerland (1988)Paintings: Müller v. Switzerland (1988) Clothes: Stevens v. U.K. (1986)Clothes: Stevens v. U.K. (1986) Nonverbal acts of protest: Steel v. U.K. (1998) Nonverbal acts of protest: Steel v. U.K. (1998) Symbols: Chorherr v Austria (1993) Symbols: Chorherr v Austria (1993)


Forms of expressionForms of expression

Vajnai v. Hungary (2006) – what was it Vajnai v. Hungary (2006) – what was it about? ECHR as the lowest common about? ECHR as the lowest common denominator? Why he did not succeeded denominator? Why he did not succeeded at ECJ?at ECJ?


Content of expressionContent of expression

Which one is on the top? Artistic Which one is on the top? Artistic (Wingrowe, Otto-Preminger-Institute (Wingrowe, Otto-Preminger-Institute v. Austria 1994) v. commercial v. Austria 1994) v. commercial ((Markt Intern aMarkt Intern andnd Beermann v Beermann v.. GermanyGermany 1990) 1990) v. political (Lingens v. political (Lingens v. Austria 1986 – central concept of v. Austria 1986 – central concept of democratic society; Castells v. Spain democratic society; Castells v. Spain 1992)…?1992)…?


LimitationsLimitations 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries

with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties penalties as are prescribed by law as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests in the interests

of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in for preventing the disclosure of information received in

confidence, confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the

judiciary.judiciary.


LimitationsLimitations

Prescribed by law:Prescribed by law: Silver v. U.K. 1983 – prisoners; Silver v. U.K. 1983 – prisoners; Sunday Times v. U.K. 1979 – Thalidomin, Sunday Times v. U.K. 1979 – Thalidomin,

only House of Lords case lawonly House of Lords case law


LimitationsLimitations

"necessary in a democratic"necessary in a democratic societysociety““ Explicitelly or implicitelly including Explicitelly or implicitelly including

proportionality test:proportionality test: Is there a legitimate purposeIs there a legitimate purpose (pressing social (pressing social

need like in need like in Sunday Times v. U.K. 1979 - Sunday Times v. U.K. 1979 - ThalidominThalidomin))??

Necessity (is there alternative measure less Necessity (is there alternative measure less intrusive and equally effectiveintrusive and equally effective?)?)

Balancing (costs and gains) Balancing (costs and gains)


LimitationsLimitations national security, territorial integrity or public national security, territorial integrity or public

safetysafety SpycatcherSpycatcher:: Observer a Observer andnd Guardian v Guardian v U. K. U. K. 19911991 (not (not

proportional)proportional),, Arrowsmith v Arrowsmith v U.K. U.K. 19801980 (pacifist in Ulster – proportional (pacifist in Ulster – proportional

punishment)punishment) prevention of disorder or crimeprevention of disorder or crime

Janowski v PolJanowski v Polandand 1999 1999 (critique of policemen „when on (critique of policemen „when on duty“ making order in riots - „hlupki“)duty“ making order in riots - „hlupki“)

the protection of health or moralsthe protection of health or morals Almost unlimited, is there a „European morality“? Only Almost unlimited, is there a „European morality“? Only

Open Door Counselling v Ireland 1992 was too much for Open Door Counselling v Ireland 1992 was too much for ECHR (unproportional)ECHR (unproportional)

Otto-Preminger Institute v. Austria (1994), WingroveOtto-Preminger Institute v. Austria (1994), Wingrove Handyside vHandyside v. U.K. . U.K. 19761976 - - The Little Red SchoolbookThe Little Red Schoolbook

(O.K.)(O.K.)


LimitationsLimitations the protection of the reputation or rights of othersthe protection of the reputation or rights of others – –

most often, best for balancingmost often, best for balancing Lingens v. Austria 1986: Lingens v. Austria 1986: "In truth Mr. Kreisky’s behaviour "In truth Mr. Kreisky’s behaviour

cannot be criticised on rational grounds but only on cannot be criticised on rational grounds but only on irrational grounds: it is immoral, undignifiedirrational grounds: it is immoral, undignified““ (+ Wiesenthal (+ Wiesenthal + Peter)+ Peter)

„„The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance. No doubt Article 10 para. 2 enables the tolerance. No doubt Article 10 para. 2 enables the reputation of others - that is to say, of all individuals - to be reputation of others - that is to say, of all individuals - to be protected, and this protection extends to politicians too, protected, and this protection extends to politicians too, even when they are not acting in their private capacity; but even when they are not acting in their private capacity; but in such cases the requirements of such protection have to in such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues.political issues.“ (42)“ (42)


LimitationsLimitations Lingens v. Austria 1986Lingens v. Austria 1986

„„In this connection, the Court has to recall that freedom of In this connection, the Court has to recall that freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (Handyside judgmentsociety" (Handyside judgment……).).“ (46)“ (46)

„„In the Court’s view, a careful distinction needs to be made In the Court’s view, a careful distinction needs to be made between facts and value-judgments. The existence of facts can between facts and value-judgments. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value-judgments is not be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value-judgments is not susceptible of proof. The Court notes in this connection that susceptible of proof. The Court notes in this connection that the facts on which Mr. Lingens founded his value-judgment the facts on which Mr. Lingens founded his value-judgment were undisputed, as was also his good faith.were undisputed, as was also his good faith.“ (41)“ (41)

FFacts and value-judgmentsacts and value-judgments


LimitationsLimitations preventing the disclosure of information received preventing the disclosure of information received

in confidencein confidence Goodwin vGoodwin v.. U.K. U.K. 19961996 – release your information source – release your information source

(unproportional) (unproportional) maintaining the authority and impartiality of the maintaining the authority and impartiality of the

judiciaryjudiciary Sunday Times v. U.K. 1979 – ThalidominSunday Times v. U.K. 1979 – Thalidomin („trial by („trial by

newspaper“)newspaper“) Schöpfer v. Switzerland 1998 (punishment of advocate Schöpfer v. Switzerland 1998 (punishment of advocate

criticizing penal trial)criticizing penal trial) De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium 1997 (critique of judges De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium 1997 (critique of judges

in pedophile case)in pedophile case) Who, by whom, when, where, how?Who, by whom, when, where, how?


Limitations in stepsLimitations in steps

Back to Vajnai v. Hungary (2006)Back to Vajnai v. Hungary (2006) 1. Are we in scope of Art. 10?1. Are we in scope of Art. 10? 2. Is there a violation?2. Is there a violation? 3. Was it "prescribed by law„? 3. Was it "prescribed by law„? 4. Did 4. Did the interference pursued a the interference pursued a

legitimate aimlegitimate aim? (which one?)? (which one?) 5. Was 5. Was the interference "necessary in a the interference "necessary in a

democraticdemocratic societysociety“?“?


Limitations in stepsLimitations in steps „„57. The Court is of course aware that the systematic terror applied to 57. The Court is of course aware that the systematic terror applied to

consolidate Communist rule in several countries, including Hungary, remains a consolidate Communist rule in several countries, including Hungary, remains a serious scar in the mind and heart of Europe. It accepts that the display of a serious scar in the mind and heart of Europe. It accepts that the display of a symbol which was ubiquitous during the reign of those regimes may create symbol which was ubiquitous during the reign of those regimes may create uneasiness amongst past victims and their relatives, who may rightly find such uneasiness amongst past victims and their relatives, who may rightly find such displays disrespectful. It nevertheless considers that such sentiments, however displays disrespectful. It nevertheless considers that such sentiments, however understandable, cannot alone set the limits of freedom of expression. Given understandable, cannot alone set the limits of freedom of expression. Given the well-known assurances which the Republic of Hungary provided legally, the well-known assurances which the Republic of Hungary provided legally, morally and materially to the victims of Communism, such emotions cannot be morally and materially to the victims of Communism, such emotions cannot be regarded as rational fears. In the Court's view, a legal system which applies regarded as rational fears. In the Court's view, a legal system which applies restrictions on human rights in order to satisfy the dictates of public feeling – restrictions on human rights in order to satisfy the dictates of public feeling – real or imaginary – cannot be regarded as meeting the pressing social needs real or imaginary – cannot be regarded as meeting the pressing social needs recognised in a democratic society, since that society must remain reasonable recognised in a democratic society, since that society must remain reasonable in its judgement. To hold otherwise would mean that freedom of speech and in its judgement. To hold otherwise would mean that freedom of speech and opinion is subjected to the heckler's veto.opinion is subjected to the heckler's veto.

58. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude 58. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant's conviction for the mere fact that he had worn a red star that the applicant's conviction for the mere fact that he had worn a red star cannot be considered to have responded to a “pressing social need”. cannot be considered to have responded to a “pressing social need”. Furthermore, the measure with which his conduct was sanctioned, although Furthermore, the measure with which his conduct was sanctioned, although relatively light, belongs to the criminal law sphere, entailing the most serious relatively light, belongs to the criminal law sphere, entailing the most serious consequences. The Court does not consider that the sanction was consequences. The Court does not consider that the sanction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It follows that the interference proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It follows that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression cannot be justified under Article 10 with the applicant's freedom of expression cannot be justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.§ 2 of the Convention.““


Freedom of expression in Freedom of expression in horizontal relationshiphorizontal relationship

Connection with other rights: Connection with other rights: Case C-112/00 Eugen Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und PlanzügeSchmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge vv. . Republik ÖsterreichRepublik Österreich

What was it about?What was it about? Which rights were in conflict and what was the solution of Which rights were in conflict and what was the solution of

this conflict?this conflict? Which judgements were quoted and how were they used?Which judgements were quoted and how were they used? Freedom of expression and association on horizontal level Freedom of expression and association on horizontal level

(deja vu of (deja vu of Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena (1978) Case 149/77: Direct navigation aérienne Sabena (1978) Case 149/77: Direct effect here means horizontal effect…Who can discriminate? effect here means horizontal effect…Who can discriminate? „39 IN FACT , SINCE ARTICLE 119 IS MANDATORY IN „39 IN FACT , SINCE ARTICLE 119 IS MANDATORY IN NATURE , THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN NATURE , THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN APPLIES NOT ONLY TO THE ACTION OF MEN AND WOMEN APPLIES NOT ONLY TO THE ACTION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES , BUT ALSO EXTENDS TO ALL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES , BUT ALSO EXTENDS TO ALL AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE INTENDED TO REGULATE PAID AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE INTENDED TO REGULATE PAID LABOUR COLLECTIVELY, AS WELL AS TO CONTRACTS LABOUR COLLECTIVELY, AS WELL AS TO CONTRACTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS.“BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS.“))


AnnouncementAnnouncement

For tommorrow:For tommorrow: Try to find as many arguments for and Try to find as many arguments for and

against death penalty as you can….against death penalty as you can….

human rights session 9 - freedom of expression human rights 9 - there is no speech nor language,...

Documents

freedom of speech

freedom of expression

freedom of opinion

human rights session

free exercise

public order ordre public

public health

public authority