Muller v Switzerland 1988

Question 1

facts until ECHR intervention

Answer 1

artist Muller created and exhibited painting depicting controversial representations

puvlic outrage led to conviction of Muller by Swiss law “offending religious feelings and public morality”

Swiss Courts = violation of public moral protected under swiss law

Muller appealed claiming freedom of expression ART10 ECHR violated by swiss authorities
=art work as an artistic exxpression and should be afforded special protection under convention

Question 2

ECHR position

Answer 2

ruled in favor of Switzerland
=art10 guarantee right to freedom of expression but not absolute and subject to restrictions

->restrictions permissible when prescribed by law and necessary in democratic society

=interference with muller freedom is legitimate and proportionate if for protection of public morals

Question 3

the marge of appreciation

Answer 3

public morality being subjective ; national authorities have discretion to restrict freedom 10 if necessary

degree of flexibility and sensitivity for State abt implementing F10

varity of opinions on sensitive subjects and no consensus = Wider margin of appreciation given to the discretion of the States
-religious sensitivity < controversial ideas

Question 4

treatment of artistic expression by ECHR

Answer 4

nature of work taken into account = risk of controversial
<
potential for harm to public morality