Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
[ ] 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
Human Rights Case Digest – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.