Judicial Review Human Rights Flashcards
Handyside v UK (1976)
Handyside was an English publisher selling indecent books
He was charge under the Obscene Publications Act 1959
He argued this infringed Article 10
This satisfied the test for being necessary in a democratic society
Was justified by being proportionate to the legitimate aim of the protection of morals
Muller and Others v Switzerland (1998)
Offensive paintings administered in public
Convicted within the obscenity laws
Argued contravention with Article 10
Considering whether “artistic expression” came within Article 10
ECtHR argued it did
The court said that interference was necessary in a democratic society - legitimate aim of moral standards
Within the “margin of appreciation”
Steel v UK (1999)
Acts of protest constitute “expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10”
Vogt v Germany (1995)
German teacher (civil servant) member of the Communist Party (DKP)
German Law required that civil servants are not members of such political groups
She was dismissed and challenged this on the grounds of Article 10
“Holding of opinions” = “Expression of opinions” and therefore engaged Article 10 of the ECHR
Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Women v Ireland (1992)
Ireland issued an injunction clinics advising on abortion information in the UK
This was argued to be incompatible with the right “to receive/impart information”
The government’s reasons were held to be neither relevant or sufficient since the information was widely available anyway
Observer & Guardian Newspapers v UK (1992) “Spy- catcher Case”
Banning of a spy book was held to fail the necessary in a democratic society test because the government’s reasons were neither “relevant of sufficient” as the information was already in the public domain
S v UK (1986)
“the right to freedom of expression may include the right for a person to express his ideas through the way he dresses”
Lingens v Austria (1986)
Journalist made comments about public officials. Afterwards a defamation action was instructed against her
This was held to be in violation with Article 10 despite that the statements were already made; may prevent others from doing this
Agee v UK (1976)
Agee formally worked for the CIA
Moved to the UK
Requests for the extension of a visa were rejected for national security reasons
He sought to challenge this using Article 10
The applicant had not shown that he was deported for exercising his rights under Article 10 but rather national security grounds
Platform Artze v Austria (1988)
Platform Artz was a group of doctors who were campaigning against abortions
This is an Article 11 case (freedom of assembly)
The police did nothing to protect their demonstration
The court agreed that there was a positive obligation to protect this right
Sunday Times v UK (1979)
An injunction against the Times publishing information about Thalidomide as this may disrupt court proceedings.
In this case the interference was disproportionate to the legitimate aim and therefore was a violation of Article 10
Ahmed and Others v UK (2000)
Involved the prohibition of certain top level employees of Local Authorities who performed politically sensitive roles from engaging in party political roles
They argued this was an unjustified interference with their freedom of expression
This was found to pass the necessary in a democratic society test as the legitimate aim was proportionate
Castells v Spain (1992)
Castells was a senator for the Basque Nationalist Party; he made strong allegations against the Spanish Police
The government could have used other alternatives to defend themselves e.g. media and press
It was not necessary to resort to criminal sanctions
They therefore held that this was disproportionate
Bowman v UK (1998)
Mrs Bowman was director of an anti-abortion organisation
During the election in Halifax she distributed leaflets endorsing a particular candidate
She was prosecuted under S75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, prohibiting the expenditure of more that £5 by an unauthorised person during an election campaign
Mrs Bowman argued this was an infringement of her right to expression
The ECtHR said that this meant that “there was a total barrier on communicating ones views to others, and was therefore disproportionate” failing the necessary in a democratic society test
Otto-Preminger Institute v Austria (1995)
The institute wished to show a film which was deeply offensive for Catholics
This was not held to be a violation of Article 10 as the expression would have very little value other than offending others
