CASE OF ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Animal Defenders International c. United Kingdom (no. 48876/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-03-07 00:00:00)
Application no.: 48876/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2013-04-22 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0422JUD004887608
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2
Judges: András Sajó;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Kristina Pardalos;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: ALLEN T.
Issue: Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ; Television Act 1954 ; Sections 319-321 and 333 of the Communications Act 2003
Strasbourg case-law cited: Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 48, ECHR 2003-VI;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 61-64 ECHR 1999-III;Bowman v. the United Kingdom, 19 February 1998, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, ECHR 2010;Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-V;Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-IV;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I;Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24;Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, ECHR 2003-VIII;Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX;Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 276;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;Manole and Others v. Moldova, no. 13936/02, § 99, ECHR 2009 (extracts);Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169;Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, 13 July 2012;Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts);Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 60, Series A no. 216;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III;Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, 10 May 2007;Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, § 56, 21 June 2012;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], no. 126/05, 22 May 2012;Société de conception de presse et d’édition and Ponson v. France, no. 26935/05, §§ 57 and 63, 5 March 2009;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, ECHR 2006-VI;Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-V;TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, ECHR 2008 (extracts);VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI;Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, § 42, 27 May 2004;Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 November 1996, Reports of Decisions and Judgments 1996-V, § 58;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, ECHR 2006-IV
External sources: Chapter 13 of the Fifth Report to the Government of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (“the Neill Committee”);The European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (“EPRA”) Survey of 2006;Recommendation R(1999)15 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Separate opinion: TRUE