THE PLACE OF LIABILITY IN RESPECT TO THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v7i3.696Keywords:
freedom of expression, civil liability, criminal liabilityAbstract
The terms ‘freedom’ and ‘liability’ are polysemantic and bear multi-valent meaningsaccording 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.
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.
