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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll