Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Nikula v. Finland

Nikula v. Finland    [  ] NIKULA v. FINLAND Right to free expression – violation Article 10 Only in exceptional cases can restriction – even by way of a lenient criminal sanction – of defence counsel’s freedom of expression be accepted as necessary in a democratic society. In a judgment delivered on  March  in the case of Nikula v. Finland , the European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article  (right to free expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article  (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant  ,  euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, EUR  ,  for pecuniary damage, and EUR  ,  for legal costs and expenses. This judgment is not final. Pursuant to Article  , Section  of the Convention, within three months from the date of the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.  . Principal facts The applicant, Anne Nikula, is a Finnish national born in  . The applicant is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Rights Case Digest Brill

Nikula v. Finland

Human Rights Case Digest , Volume 13 (3-4): 259 – Jan 1, 2002

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/nikula-v-finland-i019xjCtn4

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2002 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0965-934X
eISSN
1571-8131
DOI
10.1163/157181302761416151
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

   [  ] NIKULA v. FINLAND Right to free expression – violation Article 10 Only in exceptional cases can restriction – even by way of a lenient criminal sanction – of defence counsel’s freedom of expression be accepted as necessary in a democratic society. In a judgment delivered on  March  in the case of Nikula v. Finland , the European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article  (right to free expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article  (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant  ,  euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, EUR  ,  for pecuniary damage, and EUR  ,  for legal costs and expenses. This judgment is not final. Pursuant to Article  , Section  of the Convention, within three months from the date of the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.  . Principal facts The applicant, Anne Nikula, is a Finnish national born in  . The applicant is

Journal

Human Rights Case DigestBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.