Annotation

This paper compares the application of the proportionality test by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in freedom of expression cases. The comparison identifies patterns of approaches taken by both courts to balance conflicting values such as democracy, public morals, and human dignity, while constraining freedom of expression limitations. The paper concludes that while freedom of expression has been considered a guiding principle by the European Court, the Armenian Constitutional Court often gives greater weight to moral and cultural values, such as protecting dignity and preserving public morality. In order to place this difference within a broader context, the paper undertakes a comparison of relevant judicial practices within select foreign states. The paper conducts a comparative analysis of relevant judicial practice from selected foreign jurisdictions to illuminate the implications of Armenia's distinctive judicial approach to its larger human rights regime. The comparison underlines a need for a more systematic and transparent approach to applying proportionality arguments within constitutional interpretation domestically and thus meeting international human rights obligations.

Keywords: proportionality, freedom of expression, Constitutional Court, ECtHR, democracy, dignity, human rights.