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 The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (No. 2) - 13166/87 Judgment 26.11.1991 Article 10 Interlocutory injunctions restraining a newspaper 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 – whether these restrictions justified in period from July   1987 (when – after book had been published in United States and become available in United Kingdom – they had been maintained by courts) to October 1988 (conclusion of the trial): 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, were "prescribed by law" and had legitimate aims (primarily, "maintaining the authority of the judiciary"; further, protecting national security). 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. Although publication pending trial could have been prejudicial to Attorney General's claim for permanent injunctions, this not a "sufficient" reason for the interference since confidentiality of contents of the book destroyed by United States publication – same applied as regards national security interests: purpose of restrictions confined, by July 1987, 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 not "necessary". Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE   10 Complaint that foreign publishers not subject to same restrictions – 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). Claim for reimbursement of domestic and Strasbourg costs and expenses upheld only in part. Conclusion : United Kingdom to pay specified sum (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