ABSTRACT
When determining whether limitations to qualified rights comply with the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) often carries out a balancing exercise, namely it weighs the importance of protecting the right in question against other rights or interests with which it may clash. This practice is controversial and may be influenced by underlying assumptions as to the nature and purpose of rights and well as moral preferences on which interest(s) should be given priority over others. Using the ECtHR's case law on whistleblowing as a case study, this chapter illustrates how the Court's underlying understanding of freedom of expression and the specific function of whistleblowing within the speech-protective framework of Article 10 ECHR, affect the outcome of balancing. More specifically, the chapter identifies the normative basis on which the ECtHR relied to determine that whistleblowing is an activity protected under Article 10 ECHR, it tracks how the Court's normative understanding of the significance of whistleblowing has evolved over time and assesses the impact this has had on how the Court balances the interests of the various stakeholders affected by a whistleblower's unauthorised disclosure of information.
