Verfassungsblog: God Save Freedom of Expression

An art exhibition by Cypriot artist George Gavriel was cancelled last month following intense political and social reactions after its inauguration. Officials from the country’s conservative party DISY dismissed the paintings as obscenity and rejected freedom of expression as a justification. Far-right ELAM went further by calling for legal action, framing the works as a direct attack on faith and societal values. These allegations were rapidly amplified in public discourse, culminating in death threats against the gallery owner and a violent attack on Gavriel’s private residence involving the detonation of an explosive device outside his home.

The episode raises a fundamental question under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): can the suppression of artistic expression through political instrumentalization and institutional withdrawal amount to an interference with freedom of expression in the absence of a formal ban? Read against the Court’s jurisprudence, the Gavriel episode illustrates a broader structural failure rather than an isolated anomaly. The Court’s repeated affirmation that freedom of expression protects ideas that “offend, shock or disturb” sits uneasily with its readiness to tolerate suppression where offence is framed in moral or religious terms. In this sense, Gavriel’s case does not merely test the limits of Article 10; it exposes the extent to which the Convention framework, as currently interpreted, is ill-equipped to protect artistic freedom against contemporary forms of political pressure, moral panic and intimidation.