On the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments: A comment on Petrenco v. Moldova

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Taking as its point of departure the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Petrenco v. Moldova, this article, written in 2010, provides a review of the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments, which is one of the standards which are used by the ECtHR in order to strike a "fair balance" between freedom of speech and of the press, on the one hand, and protection of personality, as an aspect of the right to protection of private life, on the other hand.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)725-749
JournalAnnuaire International des Droits de l’Homme
VolumeVIII
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Keywords

  • Freedom of expression, European Convention of Human Rights, value judgments, statements of facts

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'On the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments: A comment on Petrenco v. Moldova'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this