header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 June 2013
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Freedom of expression—Political advertising

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll