CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 novembre 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. October-November 1991 Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom - 13585/88 Judgment 26.11.1991 Article 10 Interlocutory injunctions granted in July 1986 restraining two newspapers from publishing, pending trial of actions in which Attorney General sought permanent injunctions, details of unauthorised memoirs alleging unlawful conduct by Security Service and information obtained from their author, a former employee of the Service: no violation Restrictions maintained by courts in July 1987 (after book had been published in United States and become available in United Kingdom) and remained in force until trial concluded in October 1988: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Not disputed that injunctions interfered with applicants' freedom of expression. Interference was "prescribed by law": principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions had been previously enunciated by House of Lords and were formulated with sufficient precision. Interference had legitimate aims: primarily, "maintaining the authority of the judiciary", by protecting rights of Attorney General as a litigant pending trial; further, protecting national security, his claim for permanent injunctions being based on evidence of damage which publication would cause to Security Service. Whether interference "necessary in a democratic society": Major principles in Court's case-law recalled – prior restraints not, as such, prohibited by Article 10 but must, especially so far as press concerned, be most carefully scrutinised by Court. First period (July 1986 to July 1987): applicants wished to publish further information deriving from author and revealing alleged unlawful activity by Security Service – risk that book (still only in manuscript in July 1986) would contain disclosures detrimental to the Service and improbable that all its contents would raise questions of public concern outweighing interests of national security – English courts had relied on "relevant" reasons (publication before trial would have destroyed substance of Attorney General's actions and the claim to protect national security) and had carefully weighed conflicting interests – in light of nature and contents of the book, interests of national security involved and potential prejudice to Attorney General (seen in context of central position of Article 6 fair-trial guarantee), they were, having regard to margin of appreciation, entitled to consider injunctive relief necessary and their reasons for so concluding were "sufficient" – actual restraints imposed were "proportionate": scope was limited and duration was justified in the circumstances – national authorities entitled to think interference "necessary". Second period (July 1987 to October 1988): potential prejudice to Attorney General's claim for permanent injunctions not a "sufficient" reason for maintaining restrictions since confidentiality of contents of the book destroyed by United States publication – same applied as regards national security interests: purpose of restrictions had become confined to promotion of efficiency and reputation of Security Service and their continuation prevented newspapers from purveying information, already available, on matter of legitimate public concern – interference therefore no longer "necessary". Conclusion : violation in second period (unanimously) but not in first (fourteen votes to   ten). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 10 Allegation (partly contested) that foreign newspapers not bound by the interlocutory injunctions – the difference of treatment (if any) arose because they were not subject to English courts' jurisdiction and hence not in situation similar to applicants'. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Applicants could and did raise in substance before domestic courts their Convention complaint and "effectiveness" of remedy does not depend on certainty of success – no obligation to incorporate Convention into domestic law – Article 13 does not guarantee remedy allowing State's laws as such to be challenged as contrary to Convention. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Claim for reimbursement of domestic and Strasbourg costs and expenses upheld only in part. Conclusion : United Kingdom to pay specified sum (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes