Case Law, Strasbourg: Saint Paul Luxembourg SA v Luxembourg, Newspaper protected under Articles 8 and 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

In the case of Saint Paul Luxembourg SA v Luxembourg (Case No 26419/10) decided on 18 April 2013, the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights considered the protection of journalists against coercive court orders.  It held that a warrant to search a newspaper office was, in the circumstances,  a violation of Article 8 and, because it was in wide terms which potentially included information about sources, it was also a violation of Article 10.  The Judgment is only available in French.

The United Kingdom in Strasbourg – all the Article 10 judgments

The House of Commons Library has published  UK Cases at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975 [pdf] outlining all the cases involving the UK at Strasbourg since 1975, with links to the judgments since September 1997.  Following a request on Twitter by Adam Wagner of the “UK Human Rights Blog” for a breakdown down of the cases by category he had two responses.   There is a Word document from University of Law’s Trevor Jackson and an Excel spreadsheet from David Charlton.

Case Law, Strasbourg: Animal Defenders v UK, ban on political advertising does not violate Art 10 – Ronan Ó Fathaigh

On Monday 22 April 2013, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights held, by nine votes to eight, that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television did not violate Article 10. The majority opinion in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom departed substantially from the Court’s previous case law on political advertising, and introduced a new method for reviewing the proportionality of such blanket-bans.

A surprise ruling? Strasbourg upholds the ban on paid political ads on TV and Radio – Jacob Rowbottom

The European Court of Human Rights has given its decision in Animal Defenders International, holding that the ban on political advertising on the broadcast media does not violate Article 10. I had been convinced that the Strasbourg Court, following earlier decisions in cases involveing Switzerland and Norway, would come to the opposite conclusion – but I am relieved that they did not.

News: Court of Human Rights Dismisses Animal Defenders “Political Advertising” Article 10 application

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has dismissed the application in the case of Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom.  In a decision made by a majority of 9 votes to 8, the Grand Chamber held that the UK’s ban on political advertising in the broadcast media was not a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Case Law: Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London, Ban on ‘ex-gay, post-gay and proud’ bus advert criticised but lawful – Alasdair Henderson

In its judgment in Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London [2013] EWHC 651 (Admin), which is sure to provoke heated debate, the High Court ruled that the banning of an advert which read “NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!” from appearing on London buses was handled very badly by Transport for London (“TfL”) but was not unlawful or in breach of the human rights of the group behind the advert.

Leveson: Papers that hate human rights – except when it’s their rights

One of the more remarkable features of the “war on Leveson” waged by leading British papers has been their willingness to appeal to the European Convention on Human Rights. In the cases of several newspaper groups this is the most flagrant hypocrisy. They have consistently accused the Court of Human Rights of ignoring the will of a democratically elected parliament, but this is precisely what they want the court to do now in relation to the Leveson recommendations.

Case Law, Strasbourg, Novaya Gazeta v Russia, libel claim by politician over corruption article, no violation of Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

The decision of the Court of Human Rights in Novaya Gazeta v Russia ([2013] ECHR 251) is an interesting reminder of the requirement of journalistic responsibility even in the context of public interest articles about politicians.  The case concerned a domestic libel judgment in favour of a Regional Governor based on an article containing a value judgment.  It was, nevertheless, held to have been justified under Article 10(2) as there was insufficient factual basis for the statement made.  The article had not been written responsibly.

News: Animal Defenders “political advertising” judgment to be handed down on 22 April 2013

On 22 April 2013 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights will hand down judgment in the “political communication” case of Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom.  The case was heard over a year ago, on 7 March 2012.  The case concerns the ban on the broadcasting of political advertising in sections 319 and 321 of the Communications Act 2003 which the applicant contends is a violation of its Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

Leveson, Article 10 and Apologies: another red herring – Hugh Tomlinson QC

The media continue to seek to resist Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for the self-regulation of the press by appeals to their “human rights”.  A number of legal opinions opposing the proposals have been leaked to the press although, as far as I am aware, none have in fact been published.  Whilst it is good to see that the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph have become converts to the value of the European Convention on Human Rights, these claims do not – on analysis – undermine the Leveson proposals.