margin of appreciation, freedom of artistic expression, test of proportionality


In legal theory but also in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, there is an undisputed consensus that the margin of appreciation represents a certain “room for manoeuvre” that the Court grants to national authorities when assessing their behaviour before it is prepared to find that a violation of rights has indeed occurred. Moreover, it is often argued in legal theory that the margin of appreciation is a method of interpreting the Convention. Although these claims are widely accepted and well-founded, in recent years, various authors in legal theory have increasingly put forward assertions that the margin of appreciation has another “hidden” role in the Court's case law, namely, that it is a judicial tool through which the Court increasingly tries to create room for manoeuvre in decision-making. In this paper, the author will build on this theory of the margin of appreciation as a judicial tool aimed at giving the Court room for manoeuvre. The goal of the paper is to test the thesis on the margin of appreciation as a judicial tool aimed at leaving a certain maneuvering space for the Court itself in decisionmaking, using the method of conceptual analysis and the case study method. Following that, the author will approach the analysis of factors that provide an explanation for why the idea of leaving maneuvering space for the Court itself in decision-making and argumentation may be appealing to the Court.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Aleksandar Todorović, Vojvodina Bar Association, Novi Sad, Serbia




Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A. M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551271.

Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia.

Brauch, J. A. (2004). The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 11(2), 113–150.

Christoffersen, J. (2015). Human rights and balancing: The principle of proportionality in: C. Geiger (Ed.), Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property (pp. 19–39). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Eon v. France, no. 26118/10, ECHR 2013.

Gachechiladze v. Georgia, no. 2591/19, ECHR 2021.

Greer, S. (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights: achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press.

Guzzardi v. Italy, no. 7367/76, ECHR 1980.

Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria, no. 10783/14, ECHR 2019.

Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E. P., & Buckley, C. M. (2014). Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press.

Hunt, M., Singh, R., & Demetriou, M. (1999). Is there a role for the "Margin of Appreciation" in national law after the Human Rights Act?. European Human Rights Law Review, (1), 15–22.

Hutchinson, M. R. (1999). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(3), 638–650.

Ireland v. United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, ECHR 1978.

Kar and others v. Turkey, no. 58756/00, ECHR 2007.

Klass and others v. Germany, no. 5029/71, ECHR 1978.

Koskenniemi, M. (2009). The politics of international law–20 years later. European Journal of International Law, 20(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chp006.

Kratochvíl, J. (2011). The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(3), 324–357.

MacDonald, R. (1993). The margin of appreciation. In R. St J. MacDonald, F. Matscher, and H. Petzold (Eds.), The European system for the protection of human rights (pp. 83–85). Martinus Nijhoff.

Matijašević, J., & Alavuk, M. (2012). Postupci za utvrđivanje odgovornosti i sankcije za neizvršavanje obaveza država članica EU [The procedures for determining liability and sanctions for failure to fulfill the obligations of EU member states]. Pravo – teorija i praksa, 29(7–8), 1–19.

Mătăsaru v. Moldova, nos. 69714/16, 71685/16, ECHR 2019.

Muller and others v. Switzerland, no. 10737/84, ECHR 1988.

Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, no. 13470/87, ECHR 1994.

Prlja, S. (2016). The clash between the freedom of the media and personal rights - the right to honor and reputation, privacy and identity. Kultura Polisa, 13(30), 485–497.

Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, ECHR 2018.

Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the right margin: the European Court of Human Rights and the national margin of appreciation doctrine: Waiver or subsidiarity of European review?. Cambridge Yearbook of European legal studies, 14, 381–418. https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712805580570.

Tyrer v. United Kingdom, no. 5856/72, ECHR 1978.

Yourow, H. C., (1996). The margin of appreciation doctrine in the dynamics of European human rights jurisprudence. Martinus Nijhoff.




How to Cite

Todorović, A. (2023). WHOSE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION? ANALYZING ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE . KULTURA POLISA, 20(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.51738/Kpolisa2023.20.2r.130t



Review Article