This is a site designed to make it easier to take the core of large published reports and allow anyone to comment on them.


10. The Court observed that in the present case the two libel actions related to the same articles and both had been commenced within 15 months of the initial publication of the articles. The applicant's ability to defend itself effectively was not therefore hindered by the passage of time. Accordingly, the problems linked to ceaseless liability did not arise. However, the Court emphasised that while individuals who are defamed must have a real opportunity to defend their reputations, libel proceedings brought against a newspaper after too long a period might well give rise to a disproportionate interference with the freedom of the press under Article 10.

Email this to a friend.
Previous itemNext item.


(You must give a valid email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)

We only allow the following html tags em strong blockquote p br. After posting, there may be a short delay before your comment appears on the site