Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
This article contains many errors and needs to be edited so as to contain the proper information.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
|“||Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The licensing exception 
The provision about "licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises", ie the state’s right to license the media companies, was included because of the limited number of available frequencies and the fact that, at that time, most European states had a monopoly of broadcasting and television. Later Court decision held that due to "the technical progress in the last decades, the justification of these restrictions cannot be made by reference to the number of available frequencies and channels." The public monopolies within the audiovisual media were seen by the Court as contrary to Article 10, primarily because they cannot provide a plurality of sources of information.
Case law 
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1976)
- Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407
- The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153, the "Spycatcher" case.
- Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria, see Liebeskonzil (1994)
- Jersild v. Denmark (1994)
- Bowman v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 1
- Appleby v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 38
- Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2005), see McLibel case
- Mueller and Others v Switzerland (1988), application number 10737/84
See also 
- Monica Macovei. "A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights", Human rights handbooks, No. 2, January 2004. Retrieved 8 April 2012.
- Joanna Krzeminska-Vamvaka, Freedom of commercial speech in Europe, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac 2008 - comparative analysis of commercial speech regulation in the US, EU, under ECHR, in Germany and Poland with the comparison of general freedom of speech theory