This article analyses the latest judgment of the European Court of Human Rights dealing with the right of reply. The court held that the compulsion for a publisher to print a reply to an editorial he had written and published in his newspaper did not violate his fundamental rights. Exploring the key findings, this analysis sets out the decision’s wider implications for freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and the right to private life. Particularly, the case comes to significant conclusions that might result in the widening of the admissible content of a reply and an extension of the scope of the remedy. By reinterpreting the normative foundations of the right of reply, it also combines disparate approaches from previous case law. Thus, this article highlights both the ruling’s practical implications and potential repercussions for future application of domestic and international law on the right of reply.
- Right of reply
- freedom of expression
- right to a fair trial
- right to private life
- European Court of Human Rights