Direct Application of “Guillotine Provision” of Article 17 of the European Convention in Cases of Hate Speech and its Pitfalls
Vol.30,No.2(2022)
In Article 17 of European Convention is in order to defend democracy and its values enshrined the so called “abuse clause”. The Strasbourg authorities in som cases which are concerned with the gravest forms of hate speech apply Article 17 directly, which result is, that a complaint which is concerned with violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed in Art. 10 of the Convention, is in this case rejected as ratione materiae incompatible with provisions of the Convention, without the proceeding in merits. It is due to this method of direct application of Art. 17 in some cases of gravest forms of hate speech, why is this provision sometimes also called as a “guillotine provision”. The goal of this paper is thus assess, whether direct application of Art. 17 is appropriate method of combating against gravest forms of hate speech in todays democratic Europe, whereas this assessment is based on analysis of key factors of this direct method of application of Art. 17, which are the conduct which falls into scope of Art. 17, the essence of direct application of Art. 17 (“guillotine effect”) and problematic aspects (pitfalls) of this direct application of Art. 17.
Art. 17 of Convention; Direct Application; Art. 10 of Convention; Freedom of Speech; Hate Speech; Scope of Freedom of Speech; Court; Problematic Aspects (Pitfalls)
305–349
Peter Šajmovič
Department of Theory of Law and Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Trnava University, Trnava
Ph.D. student
ALLPORT, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice. 25. výroční vyd. New York: Basic Books, 1979.
BROWN, A. Hate Speech Law. A Philosophical Examination. New York: Routledge, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714899
BROWN, A. What is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate. Law and Philosophy. 2017, roč. 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9297-1
CANNIE, H., VOORHOOF, D. The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression in the European Human Rights Convention: An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. Ghent University, marec 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016934411102900105
MORREE, P. de. Rights and Wrongs under the ECHR. The prohibition of abuse of rights in Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Intersentia, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780685427
FARRIOR, S. Molding The Matrix: The Historical and Theoretical Foundations of International Law Concerning Hate Speech. Berkeley Journal of International Law. 1996, roč. 14, č. 1, s. 62–66.
KÁČER, M., ŠAJMOVIČ, P. Obmedzovanie slobody prejavu v radikalizujúcej sa spoločnosti. Praha: Leges, 2021.
KMEC, J., KOSAŘ, D., KRATOCHVÍL, J., BOBEK, M. Evropská úmluva o lidských právech. Komentář. 1. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2012.
KRAMER, M. Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint. University of Cambridge, Oxford University Press, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198868651.001.0001
LOBBA, P. Testing the “Uniqueness”: Denial of the Holocaust vs Denial of Other Crimes Before the European Court of Human Rights. In: BELAVUSAU, U., GLISZCZYNSKA-GRABIAS, A. (eds.). Law and Memory. Addressing Historical Injustice by Law. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
MACOVEI, M. Freedom of expression. A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights handbooks. Nemecko: Rada Európy, 2004, č. 2/január.
MARCUS, K. L. Accusation in a Mirror. 43 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 357 (2012).
MOON, R. The Scope of Freedom of Expression. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 1985, roč. 23, č. 2, s. 331–357.
POST, R. Recuperating First Amendment Doctrine. 47 STAN. L. REV. 1249, 1250–60 (1995).
SHANOR, A. First Amendment Coverage. New York University Law Review. 2018, roč. 93, máj.
SCHAUER, F. Categories and the First Amendment: A Play in Three Acts. Wm. & Mary Law School, Faculty Publications, 1981.
SCHAUER, F. Free speech: a philosophical enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
SCHAUER, F. On the Distinction Between Speech and Action. 65 Emory L.J. 427, 429 (2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2514453
SCHAUER, F. The Politics and Incentives of First Amendment Coverage. 56 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1613 (2015).
SVÁK, J. Ochrana ľudských práv v troch zväzkoch. I. zväzok. Bratislava: EUROKÓDEX, apríl 2011.
TUSHNET, M. The Coverage/Protection Distinction in the Law of Freedom of Speech – An Essay on Meta-Doctrine in Constitutional Law. 25 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1073(2017), s. 1083–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770774
WEBER, A. Manual on hate speech. Council of Europe Publishing, september 2009.
WICZANOWSKA, H. Does ECHR Prohibition of Abuse of Rights Lead to Contradiction of the Principle of Legality? Considerations upon Judicial Practice of ECtHR. Przeglad Prawa Konstytucyjnego. 2019, roč. 25, č. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2019.06.09
WILFLING, P. Nenávistné prejavy a extrémizmus v rozhodnutiach Európskeho súdu pre ľudské práva. Pezinok: Via Iuris, 2017.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2022 Peter Šajmovič