The court then goes on to express hope that this does not introduce a new reign of censorship, but that is exactly what is may do.
IANAL either but I know from frequent conversations with law students I know that intent plays a major role in a court's decision. A good example for this is theft. If I take your property it isnt automatically theft, unless the court is convinced that I didnt intent to return it. Under no circumstances do I see another court (and appeals courts) not paying attention to the intent of the ECHR. Especially because an actual censorship case could to make it back to the ECHR. They would most likely ask the lower court if they are off their rocker, because they explained their intent in the original ruling.
If anyone claims free speech impairment by the ECHR, that extra ordinary claim better have extra ordinary evidence. This doesnt.
I have been paying attention to the ECHR (and the German high courts) for over 10 years and NOT EVEN ONCE have I noticed a sliver of unreasonableness. More the complete opposite. Think of a law that could be part of a conservative wet dream and you will probably find high court decision against something similar.