Article 10 - Case List Flashcards
Handyside v UK: Facts
D published a ‘Little Red Handbook’ and was convicted under Obscene Publications Act 1959-64 as the book was obscene as it tended to deprave and corrupt children. Claimed to teach children about sex, including recommending the use of porn
Handyside v UK: Decisions
No breach of Article 10 and UK law as it fell within the margin of appreciation of the member state
This in line with the idea od himan rights and their interpretaion being dynamic and not bound by precedent
Guerra v Italy: Facts
Applicants complained that Italian state had failed to provide information about potentially hazardous industry near where they lived
Guerra v Italy: Decision
ECtHR on Article 10 - ‘the freedom cannot be construed as imposing on a state, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information on its own accord’
EctHR held the state is not under a positive obligation to provide information
Restriction has been overcome in UK law
- Sarah’s Law
- Freedom of Information Act 2000
- Data Protection Act
Steel and Morris v UK: Facts
The applicants were sued by McDonals after handing out leaflets entitled ‘whats wrong with McDonalds’
Steel and Morris: Decision
Their opinions were in the public interest
Allegations consituted ‘political expression’. It was not compatible with Art 10 to allow companies to sue for defamation
Sunday Times v UK: Facts
The use of thalidomide resulted in children being born with deformities and was withdrawn in 1961
Parents sued them and negotiations went on for years, with settlements being approved by courts which was covered by the press extensively
Sunday Times v UK: Decision
ECtHR said thalidomide use a matter of public concern and the injunction against the newspaper ‘did not correspond to a social need sufficiently pressing to outweigh the public nterest in freedom of expression’
Otto v Austria: Facts
A wide margin of appreciation was given to a local authority in Austria who banned an erotic film containing images of Jesus. Film was banned in a very Catholic area where it was considered gratuitous and offensive
Otto v Austria: Decision
ECtHR gave the state a wide margin of appreciation and held that the ban was justified in order to protect religios beliefs of others
Garaudy v France: Facts
Garaudy wrote a book denying the Holocaust and criticising Israel and Jewish community. Convicted of Holocaust denial and incitement of hatred
Garaudy v France: Decision
Appealed to ECtHR claiming violation of Article 10. Held no violation
His opinions were protected under Art 10 (1), but state was able to limit them under Article 10 (2): the protection of the reputation or rights of others
R (on the application of pro Life Alliance) v BBC: Facts
BBC wouldn’t broadcast a political party broadcast by pro Life Alliance saying the content of the broadcast went agaisnt public decency
R (on the application of pro Life Alliance) v BBC: Decision
CoA held violation of Article 10
HoL held no violation
The legitimate aim of the BB to protect public morals outweighed the Article 10 right
R (on the application of Laporte) v CC of Gloucestershire Constabulary: Facts
The passengers on a coach heading towards an anti-war protest to a RAF base were stopped by the police and ordered to return to London under a police escort
Police claimed it was to prevent a breach of the peace
R (on the application of Laporte) v CC of Gloucestershire Constabulary: Decision
appeal allowed as there was no evidence that a breach of the peace was imminent and their actions were disproportionate under Article 10 and 11
Munim Abdul and ors v DPP: Facts
Appellants were found guilty under s.5 Public Order Act 1986 when they protested during a homecoming parade for the soldiers returning from War.
Shouted at the sodliers that they were ‘baby killers’
Appealed claiming Article 10
Munim Abdul and ors v DPP: Decision
Article 10 allows opinions that are considered distasteful by others however, court concluded the convictions should be upheld as the actions of the protestors went beyond what is considered a legitimate protest
Observer v UK: Facts
A former MI5 spy published a book on his time there. Gov tried to stop the book being published but the book was published in the US
Observer v UK: Decision
Once the book had been published the information lost its confidential character therefore Gov’s attempt to keep banning the book were excessive and violated Article 10
R v Shayler: Facts
An MI5 officer leaked documents to the press
Defences of public interest failed
R v Shayler: Decision
There is no public interest defence available for offences under Official Secrets Act 1989
Surek v Turkey: Facts
Applicant was convicted of the offence of disseminating propaganda against the state
Surek v Turkey: Decision
Article 10 was engaged but Turkey could justify interference under Article 10 (2) to prevent disorder or crime
Interfernce was proportionate
Wide margin
Müller v Switzerland: Facts
Claimed that Article 10 was infringed under applicants conviction of publishing obscene content, consisting of paintings
Müller v Switzerland: Decision
the standards of sexual morality do not change, but it didn’t find the view of the Swiss courts unreasonable therefore fining thhe exhibition organisers was not a violation
Open Door and Dublin Well Women v Ireland: Facts and decision
The applicants were prohibited from providing any information to pregnant women about abortion clinics in GB
claimed it was for the protection of health and morals
NO violation
R v Gibson: Facts
An artist and gallery owner were charged with exhibiting a public nuisance and outraging public decency for displaying earring made from
R v Gibson: Decision
protected public’s health and morals
Bédat v Switzerland: Facts
applicant was fined in 2003 for publishing an article quesitonning an accused motorist’s state of mind and included a personal description as well as photographs of letters sent by him to the investigating judge
Bédat v Switzerland: Decision
no violation of Article 10 and the court found that the fine imposed was necessary in a democratic society
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd
Duty of confidentiality:
- information has ‘the necessary quality of confidence about it’
- information must have been imparted in circumstances with an obligation of confidence
- must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it
Attorney-General v Observer Ltd
3 limitations to Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd
- duty only applies whilst information is confidential
- duty doesn’t apply to useless information or trivia
- maybe some other public interest that favours disclosure
Campbell v MGN Ltd
the publication of photographs of her outside a rehabilitation clinic was a disproportionate interference with the rights to privacy, even though she was recieving treatment in the public domain
Neither Article 8 or 10 prevails over the other, it’s a balancing act
Article 8 ‘won’
Goodwin v UK: Facts
A journalist refused to divuldge the name of his source. He had recieved finanical information about the financial situation of a company. Company wanted to know the identity of the source. Journalist is not allowed to publish the information
Goodwin v UK: Decision
Making him disclose his source was a breach of Article 10
Article 8: transgender people must be treated equally - Gender Recognition Act 2004
Axel Springer v Germany: Facts
well-known German actor who played a police officer was arrested for drug possession. Applicant pronted articles about the arrest. Case had to balance Articles 8 and 10. ECtHR decided in favour of the newspaper
There was public itnerest in the story, paper only wrote about the arrest, which was public knowledge and no other personal issues about the actor was discussed
Article 10 outweighed Article 8
Axel Springer v Germany: Decision
- Does the information contribute to a debate of the general itnerest?
- What is the notoriety of the person concerned and the subject matter?
- Does it refer to prior conduct of the person concerned?
- What was the method of obtaining the information and its veracity?
- What is the content, form and consequences of the publication?
- What is the severity of the sanction imposed?
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd: Facts
C was a public figure in F1 racing and it was known about his use of prostitutes
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd: Decision
Violation of Article 8
His right to privacy had been violated as there was no public interest in his private life
A v B (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd)
Lord Woolf: a publid figure is entitles to a privat elife but must recognise and accept that his actions may be more closely scrutinised by the media.
A ‘role model’ may hold a position where higher standards can be expected
CC v AB: Facts
AB wanted to disclose information to the press about the affair between CC and AB’s wife - N
AB admitted he was doing this for revenge and financial gain
CC v AB: Decision
Court upheld an interim injunction stopping publications
No general public interst in the disclosure
Thompson and Venables v News Corp
indefinite injunction was granted to prevent the disclosure of whereabouts and identities of T and V due to a ‘serious risk to physical safety’
Mills v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd: Facts
ex wife of Paul McCartney
Mills v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd: Decision
was not granted an injunction to stop a newspaper printing her address as there was not a serious risk to her physical safety
Editorial Board of Parvoye Delo and Shtekel v Ukraine: Facts
a newspaper published a letter that was found
Editorial Board of Parvoye Delo and Shtekel v Ukraine: Decision
No law in Ukraine regarding this was allowed under the requirement that an act by the state which interferes with Article 10 (1)
Must have a legal basis which is clear, precise and predictable, the limitation
Yildirim v Turkey
The use of the internet cannot be limited under Article 10 (2)
