THE PLACE OF LIABILITY IN RESPECT TO THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Authors

  • Valentina Chiper (Mihalcea) University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v7i3.696

Keywords:

freedom of expression, civil liability, criminal liability

Abstract

The terms ‘freedom’ and ‘liability’ are polysemantic and bear multi-valent meanings
according to the field.
Civil or criminal liability, through the interdictions it brings, sets the border between
the legal or illegal discourse. The guilt defined by criminal and civil crimes transfers a set of
obligations to the communicator1. Terms like ‘excess’ or ‘abuse’ of the freedom of expression
is another way to define it.
We shall try hereinafter to answer the question whether it is better to regulate and
engage the civil liability or criminal liability in relation to the freedom of expression.

Author Biography

Valentina Chiper (Mihalcea), University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania

Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences

References

Cass., 2e civ., 18 februarie 2010: Communication Commerce Electronique, 2010,

comm. 38, obs. A. Lepage;

Louriane Josende, Liberté d´expression et démocratie. Réflexion sur un paradoxe,

Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2010;

Bouloc Bernard, Vers un déclin de la sanction pénal des atteintes a la dignite?,

Recueil Dalloz Sirey, 21/05/2009, n° 20 , p. 1373;

D. C. DăniÅŸor, Principiul retroactivităţii legii penale sau contravenţionale mai

favorabile, in “Caiete de drept penal†Review, no. 4/2009, C.H. Beck Publishing House,

Bucharest, 2009;

Commission nationale consultative des droits de l´homme, Les droits de l´homme en

France. Regards portés par les instances interationales. Rapport 2009-2011, La

documentation Française, Paris;

ECHR, January 24, 2008, Coutant versus France, in Revue de science criminelle et de

droit comparé, 2008, p. 706, obs. Marguénaud;

ECHR, June 2008, Avgi Publishing versus Greece, §35; ECHR, February 15, 2005,

Steel & Morris versus UK, § 96;

Michel Van de Kerchove, Les caracteres et les fonctions de la pein, noeud gordien des

relations entre droit pénal et droits de l´homme, in Les droits de l´homme, bouclier ou épée

du droit penal?, coordinated by Zves Cartuyvels, Hugues Dumont, Francois Ost, Michel Van

de Kerchove, Sébastian Van Drooghenbroeck, Brussels, Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis,

;

D. C. DăniÅŸor, S. Răduleţu, Competenţa Curţii Constituţionale. Insulta. Calomnia.

Controlul normelor de abrogare, in “Curierul Judiciar†Journal, no. 3/2007, C.H. Beck

Publishing House, Bucharest, 2007;

ECHR, December 10, 2007, Stoll versus Switzerland, §104;

Guillaume Lécuyer, Liberté d´expression et responsabilité. Étude de droit privé.

Thèse, Dalloz, Paris, 2006;

Loïc Cadiet, Liberté d´expression et responsabilité. Étude de droit privé. Thèse,

Dalloz, Paris, 2006,

Gérard Spitéri, Le journaliste et ses pouvoirs, PUF, coll. “Essaisâ€, 2004;

ECHR, December 17, 2004, Cumpănă and Mazăre versus Romania, §115; and also

ECHR, September 23, 2004, Feridun Yazar versus Turkey, § 27, 23; ECHR, July 8, 1999,

Surek and Ozdemir versus Turkey, §l 63;

ECHR, March 30, 2004, Radio-France versus France, §40, April 23, 1992 Castell

versus Spain, §46;

ECHR, March 9, 2004, Abdullah Aydin versus Turkey, §34; July 8, 1999, Okcuoglu

versus Turkey, §49; May 27, 2003, Skalka versus Poland, §42;

ECHR, Çetin et al versus Turkey, Resolution of February 13, 2003; C.S.Y. versus

Turkey, ECHR Decision of March 4, 2003; Incal versus Turkey, ECHR judgment of June 9,

;

ECHR, March 4, 2003, Yasar Kemel versus Turkey, § 33, (http://www.echr.coe.int/);

ECHR, October 22, 2007, Lindon Otchakovsky-Laurrens et al versus France, §59;

Irina Moroianu Zlătescu, Un echilibru instabil: Libertatea de exprimare ÅŸi interdicţia

discriminării rasiale, in “Revista de drept public†Review, no.1/2001;

ECHR, Constantinescu versus Romania, judgment of June 27, 2000; ECHR, October

, 2000, Du Roy and Malaurie versus France, §36;

Patrice Jourdain, Les principes de la responsabilité civile, Dalloz, Paris, 2000;

ECHR, July 8, 1999, Sürek versus Turky;

Renée Koering-Joulin, Jean- François Seuvic, Droits fondamentaux et droit criminel,

AJDA spécial, 1998;

ECHR, Pierre-Bloch versus France, October 21, 1997, Recueil 1997-VI, p. 2224, § 53;

Malige versus France, 23.09.1998 (http://www.echr.coe.int/, § 35);

ECHR, September 24, 1997, Garyfalou Aebe versus Greece;

Mireille Delmas-Marty, Le paradoxe pénal, în Libertés et droitd fundamentaux, sub

direcţia M. Delmas-Marty ÅŸi Lucas de Leyssac, Paris, Seuil, 1996;

ECHR, July 13, 1995, Tolstoy miloslavsky versus UK, §48;

ECHR, October 20, 1994, Otto Preminger versus Austria, §55-57;

Points 19-20 in the Resolution no. 1003/1993 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the

Council of Europem pblished in Romania’s Official Journal no. 265 of September 20, 1994;

ECHR, June 25, 1992, Thorgeir Thorgeirson versus Iceland, §68;

ECHR, February 22, 1989, Barford versus Denmark, §29;

ECHR, May 24, 1988, Muller versus Switzerland, §68.35-43;

Tocquevile, État social et politique de la France avant et depuis 1799, 1838, reedit.

Garnier-Flammarion, 1988;

ECHR, July 8, 1986, Lingens versus Austria, §44;

Geneviève Viney, La responsabilité, APD, 1977;

Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart, Low, Liberty and Morality, Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 1963;

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Downloads

Published

2013-10-01

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.