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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll