You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Darc808 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This is an article from 2013 when the ECtHR first ruled that there was no art. 10 violation. It's funny you'd post this now, as this case was taken to the Grand Chamber and they have judged today, confirming the earlier judgement: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"sort":["kpdate Descending"],"documentcollectionid2":["JUDGMENTS"],"itemid":["001-155105"]}

0
0

[–] novictim ago 

Hey, so what was the ultimate outcome? If you provide a link also provide your own synopsis along with it please.

Many of us don't trust links to unknown sites.

0
1

[–] Darc808 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The url links to the official ECtHR website, It's safe. The judgement confirms the outcome and reasoning from the first judgement.

More in depth: Here