This article examines European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence concerning free elections and identifies relevant approaches that can be applied to electoral disinformation. The relationship between disinformation and freedom of expression has attracted considerable academic scrutiny in recent years. However, surprisingly little attention has been given to the right to free elections. This article addresses this gap by identifying key ECtHR approaches to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR and evaluating the Court’s interpretive reasoning in the disinformation context. Focus is given to cases where the Court has addressed falsified information in the electoral process. Considering the special relationship between freedom of expression and free elections in Strasbourg jurisprudence, focus is also given to the Court’s contemplation of acceptable limitations to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR in response to deceptive political expression. Mapping the Court’s reasoning in key decisions, this article identifies informed democratic engagement as a crucial requirement that permeates the Court’s approach to elections. Considering the importance of democracy in the Court’s reasoning, this article argues that the Court should be more proactive in elucidating key standards for Contracting Parties to make democracies more resilient to electoral disinformation.

中文翻译：

---

自由和知情的选举？《欧洲人权公约》第一议定书第 3 条下的虚假信息和民主选举

本文研究了欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 关于自由选举的判例，并确定了可应用于选举虚假信息的相关方法。近年来，虚假信息与言论自由之间的关系引起了学术界的大量关注。然而，令人惊讶的是，对自由选举权的关注却很少。本文通过根据 ECHR 第一议定书第 3 条确定关键的 ECtHR 方法来解决这一差距，并评估法院在虚假信息背景下的解释性推理。重点关注法院在选举过程中处理虚假信息的案件。考虑到斯特拉斯堡判例中言论自由与自由选举之间的特殊关系，还重点关注了法院考虑根据《欧洲人权公约》第 10 条对言论自由进行可接受的限制，以应对欺骗性的政治言论。本文描绘了法院在关键决定中的推理，将知情的民主参与确定为贯穿法院选举方法的一项关键要求。考虑到民主在法院推理中的重要性，本文认为法院应更加积极主动地阐明缔约方的关键标准，以使民主国家更能抵御选举虚假信息。本文将知情的民主参与确定为贯穿法院选举方法的一项关键要求。考虑到民主在法院推理中的重要性，本文认为法院应更加积极主动地阐明缔约方的关键标准，以使民主国家更能抵御选举虚假信息。本文将知情的民主参与确定为贯穿法院选举方法的一项关键要求。考虑到民主在法院推理中的重要性，本文认为法院应更加积极主动地阐明缔约方的关键标准，以使民主国家更能抵御选举虚假信息。