[10] Beddard argues that Article 18 has also proved difficult to apply due to the Court's broad interpretation of the interests listed under the Convention,[11] and the application of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation.
In this case Lutsenko, the former minister of internal affairs of Ukraine, argued that the real reason he had been arrested and detained was for publicly claiming his innocence in relation to accusations made against him.
[20] The Court found that Cebotari's detention had been arbitrary (and therefore contrary to Article 5 ECHR), as it was not based upon a 'reasonable suspicion', meaning "the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence".
[22] Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan concerned the restriction of applicant’s liberty for purposes other than bringing him before competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence.
The applicant’s arrest had been linked to his specific blog entries, in particular, his post of 28 January 2013 which included sourced information shedding light on the "true causes" of the Ismayilli protests, which the Government had reportedly attempted to withhold from the public and which had immediately been picked up by the press.
Accordingly, the restriction of the applicant’s liberty had been applied for purposes other than bringing him before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence.
[26]Khodorkovskiy's lawyers claimed the finding of human rights violations by the Russian state as sufficient victory, as a court will very rarely attribute a bad faith motive to a government.
[29] This generally occurs in four situations:[30] Handyside v United Kingdom is a case largely known for its extension of the protection of freedom of expression, however, Article 18 was also argued.
[31] The applicant argued that The Little Red Schoolbook had been seized in the United Kingdom to prevent the development of modern teaching techniques, rather than to protect morals.
[32] The Commission chose to consider the matter solely under Article 10(2), taking the motivations of the state into consideration in deciding whether the limit on freedom of expression was justified.