header-logo header-logo

13 June 2013
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Freedom of expression—Political advertising

Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (App. No. 48876/08) [2013] ECHR 48876/08, [2013] All ER (D) 21 (May)

European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), 22 April 2013, Judges: Dean Spielmann (President), Nicolas Bratza, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Nina Vajic, Ineta Ziemele, Elisabeth Steiner, Päivi Hirvelä, George Nicolaou, András Sajó, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Mihai Poalelungi, Nebojša Vucinic, Kristina Pardalos, Vincent De Gaetano, Julia Laffranque, Helen Keller

The ban on political advertising in the United Kingdom does not constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant (ADI) was a non-governmental organisation based in the United Kingdom. It campaigned against the use of animals in commerce, science and leisure. It sought to achieve changes in law and public policy and to influence public and parliamentary opinion to that end. In 2005, ADI began a campaign called “My Mate’s a Primate” directed against the keeping and exhibition of primates and their use in television advertising. As part of the campaign,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll