FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE PROCESS OF CONVERGENCE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF UKRAINE WITH THE EU ACQUIS: EUROPEAN STANDARDS, ECTHR PRACTICE AND CHALLENGES OF THE DIGITAL AGE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2307-8049/2026-4-22Keywords:
freedom of expression; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights; European Union acquis; European integration; digital rights; digital environment; Digital Services Act; convergence of legal systems; information lawAbstract
Purpose. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of European standards for protecting freedom of expression in the context of the convergence of Ukraine’s legal system with the European Union acquis. The study also examines the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the digital environment and identifies the main challenges and prospects for improving Ukrainian legislation in the context of digital transformation and European integration. To achieve this purpose, the study pursues the following objectives: to analyse contemporary approaches adopted by the European Court of Human Rights to the interpretation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to systematise its case law concerning freedom of expression in the digital environment; and to identify the specific features of the convergence of Ukraine’s legal system with the EU acquis in the field of freedom of expression and the implementation of European standards. Methods. The methodological basis of the study is a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach to freedom of expression as a fundamental human right undergoing transformation under the influence of the digitalisation of social relations and Ukraine’s European legal integration. The research draws on human rights theory, constitutional law, European Union law, international law, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The systemic approach made it possible to examine freedom of expression as a complex legal institution connected with the principles of the rule of law, democracy, pluralism, personal data protection, information security, and digital human rights. The formal legal method was used to analyse Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and relevant EU legal instruments. The hermeneutic method was applied to interpret the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, while the comparative legal method was used to examine the interaction between international, European, and national mechanisms for protecting freedom of expression. The application of these methods enabled a comprehensive analysis of the legal mechanisms for protecting freedom of expression, an assessment of the role of ECtHR case law in the development of European standards of freedom of expression in the digital environment, and the formulation of proposals for improving Ukrainian legislation in the context of digital transformation and integration into the European Union’s legal order. Results. The study analyses contemporary approaches adopted by the ECtHR to the interpretation of Article 10 of the ECHR and systematises the Court’s case law concerning freedom of expression in the digital environment. It identifies the specific features of the convergence of Ukraine’s legal system with the EU acquis and outlines the principal directions for implementing European standards, ECtHR case law, and EU digital legislation into Ukrainian law in the context of digital transformation and European integration. Conclusions. The study establishes that ECtHR case law and the contemporary EU acquis are shaping new standards for protecting freedom of expression in the digital environment. It substantiates the need for the comprehensive implementation of these standards into Ukraine’s legal system, taking into account the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, proportionality, effective judicial protection, and European integration.
References
1. Pollicino, O. (2019). Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights in the Transition from the World of Atoms to the World of Bits: The Case of Freedom of Speech. European Law Journal, 25(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12311
2. Pollicino O. (2023). General report: Freedom of Speech and the Regulation of Fake News. In: Pollicino O., De Gregorio G. (Eds.). Freedom of Speech and the Regulation of Fake News. Cambridge : Intersentia. P. 1–38.
3. Brown, I., & Korff, D. (2012). Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online. Global Network Initiative. https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/digital-freedoms-international-law/
4. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No. 300/2008, (EU) No. 167/2013, (EU) No. 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, 2024/1689, 12 July 2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
5. Шевчук С. В. (2010) Судовий захист прав людини: практика Європейського суду з прав людини у контексті західної правової традиції. 3-тє вид. Київ : Реферат, 848 с.
6. Буткевич В. Г., Маляренко В. Т. (2004) Європейський суд з прав людини та українське судочинство: питання взаємодії. Вісник Верховного Суду України. № 4. С. 2–8.
7. Петришин О. В., Гиляка О. С.(2021) Права людини у цифрову епоху: виклики, загрози та перспективи. Вісник Національної академії правових наук України. 2021. Т. 28, № 1. С. 15–23. DOI: 10.37635/jnalsu.28(1).15-23.
8. Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, Applications nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, ECtHR, Judgment of 10 January 2019. Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-189218
9. OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, Applications nos. 12468/15, 23489/15 and 19074/16, ECtHR, Judgment of 23 June 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-203178
10. Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (No. 3), Application No. 39378/15. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 7 December 2021. Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-213914
11. Sanchez v. France [GC], Application no. 45581/15, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 May 2023. Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-224958
12. European Court of Human Rights. (2025). Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Expression. Updated 31 August 2025. Strasbourg: Registry of the European Court of Human Rights.
13. Братасюк О. Б., Ментух Н. Ф. (2021). Поняття та класифікація цифрових прав в Україні. Юридичний науковий електронний журнал. № 10. С. 58–61. DOI: 10.32782/2524-0374/2021-10/12.
14. Дідух Х. В. (2024) Цифрові права: український та європейський досвід. Науковий вісник Ужгородського національного університету. Серія: Право. № 85(1). С. 59–65. DOI: 10.24144/2307-3322.2024.85.1.7.
15. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/ EC (Digital Services Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 277, 1–102.
16. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of 11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act). Official Journal of the European Union, 2024/1083.
17. Turillazzi, A., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., & Casolari, F. (2023). The Digital Services Act: An analysis of its ethical, legal, and social implications. Law, Innovation and Technology, 15(1), 83–106. DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2023.2184136.
18. Про виконання рішень та застосування практики Європейського суду з прав людини : Закон України від 23 лютого 2006 р. № 3477-IV. База даних «Законодавство України» / Верховна Рада України. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3477-15
