header-logo header-logo

Human rights—Freedom of expression—Political advertising

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

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll