Freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is central to the functioning of democratic society. Yet its boundaries are constantly tested when courts impose sanctions on journalists, employees, or citizens who raise matters of public concern. Two recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) –Arvanitis and Phileleftheros v. Cyprus(3 July 2025) andGadzhiyev and Gostev v. Russia(15 October 2024) – provide important guidance on how national authorities must balance reputation and authority on the one hand, and freedom of expression on the other. Both highlight the dangers of disproportionate sanctions and the insidious impact of the “chilling effect” on democratic debate.
Case One: Arvanitis and Phileleftheros v. Cyprus
The case arose when a Cypriot lawyer published an autobiographical article describing how he had recovered looted family paintings from the occupied part of Cyprus. A journalist responded inPhileleftherosnewspaper with a sharply critical column, using provocative language to question the lawyer’s choices and their wider implications for the property dispute in Cyprus.
The Cypriot courts held the article defamatory, awarded damages against the journalist and the newspaper, and dismissed defences of truth and fair comment. They considered the journalist’s words to be vulgar, made in bad faith, and damaging to the lawyer’s reputation.
The ECtHR took a different view. It emphasised that the issue – the restitution of looted art and property rights in Cyprus – was of general public interest. By publishing his own article, the lawyer had entered the public sphere and had to accept a degree of criticism. The journalist’s article, though couched in strong and provocative terms, consisted largely of value judgments with a factual basis in the lawyer’s own words. Strasbourg found that the Cypriot courts applied an excessively rigid approach, substituting their own views for journalistic style. Crucially, the damages imposed created a significant pecuniary burden and risked discouraging robust debate. The Court concluded that the interference was disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society,” finding a violation of Article 10.
Case Two: Gadzhiyev and Gostev v. Russia
The second case concerned two Russian employees – a police officer and a Moscow metro worker – who were dismissed for speaking to the media about corruption and safety issues. Their statements raised concerns about working conditions and passenger safety, subjects with clear public importance.
The ECtHR held that their speech was protected under Article 10. The employees had acted without malice, used no offensive language, and caused no demonstrable harm to their employers. Yet the sanctions imposed – dismissal from their posts – were the harshest available and manifestly disproportionate. The Court noted that such punishments inevitably produce a chilling effect: not only do the dismissed employees fall silent, but others in similar positions of responsibility are deterred from speaking out in the future. This undermines transparency and weakens the rule of law, as systemic problems remain hidden rather than openly debated.
The Chilling Effect
Both judgments illustrate the Court’s consistent warning about the “chilling effect.” Excessive sanctions against those who contribute to public debate do more than silence an individual: they create a climate of self-censorship. Journalists may avoid publishing critical opinions, and employees or public officials may refrain from reporting irregularities. This silent erosion of open discourse allows misconduct or mismanagement to persist without scrutiny. The chilling effect is thus one of the greatest threats to democratic accountability, operating indirectly but powerfully.
Common Principles
Taken together,ArvanitisandGadzhiyev and Gostevreaffirm several key principles of Article 10:
1.Contribution to public debate:Where expression concerns matters such as corruption, public safety, or the handling of cultural heritage, restrictions must be narrowly construed.
2.Status of the person concerned:Those who voluntarily enter the public sphere by publishing their views must tolerate closer scrutiny.
3.Value judgments versus facts:Courts must distinguish between factual allegations, which can be proven, and value judgments, which enjoy greater protection and cannot be subjected to rigid proof.
4.Proportionality of sanctions:Even civil damages or disciplinary measures may be excessive if they impose undue burdens and risk suppressing open discussion.
5.Good faith:Article 10 protection is strongest where speech is made in good faith and without malice. In both cases, the Court stressed that neither the journalist nor the employees sought to mislead or defame, but rather aimed to contribute to issues of genuine public concern.
Conclusion
ArvanitisandGadzhiyev and Gostevstand as clear reminders that freedom of expression is not only about the right to speak, but also about ensuring that individuals are not silenced by fear of disproportionate punishment. Whether through heavy damages in a defamation case or dismissal from employment, sanctions that deter legitimate participation in public debate corrode democratic life.
The Strasbourg Court has made plain that provocative journalism and good-faith whistleblowing must be protected, even when they cause discomfort. Open debate, not silence, is the essence of a democratic society.