CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 février 1994

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; 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. February 1994 Casado Coca v. Spain - 15450/89 Judgment 24.2.1994 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Disciplinary penalty imposed on a member of the Bar for contravening ban on professional advertising: no 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.] Article 10 of the Convention A.   APPLICABILITY Freedom of expression: Article   10 makes no distinction according to whether the type of aim pursued is profit-making or not -it does not apply solely to certain types of information or ideas or forms of expression. Impugned notices had been published with aim of advertising but had provided persons requiring legal assistance with information of definite use and likely to facilitate their access to justice. Conclusion : Article 10 applicable (unanimously). B.   COMPLIANCE 1.   Interference by a "public authority" Professional associations: described in Spanish law as public-law corporations, a status that was buttressed by the Bars' purpose of serving the public interest (furtherance of free, adequate legal assistance combined with public supervision of practice of the profession and of compliance with professional ethics). Penalty complained of: imposed by the Bar authorities - subsequently upheld by the competent courts and the Constitutional Court, which were State institutions. 2.   Was the interference justified? (a)   "Prescribed by law" Legal basis for penalty: Article 31 of the Statute of the Spanish Bar. (b)   Legitimate aim No reason to doubt that the Bar rules complained of had been designed to protect the interests of the public while ensuring respect for members of the Bar - special nature of the profession of members of the Bar, which was the traditional justification for restrictions on advertising. In the case of the decision in issue, there was nothing to show that the Bar council's intention had not corresponded to the acknowledged aim of the legislation. (c)   "Necessary in a democratic society" States' margin of appreciation is subject to European supervision and is particularly essential in respect of advertising. Advertising gives the citizen a means of discovering the characteristics of services and goods offered to him - may be restricted, especially to prevent unfair competition and untruthful or misleading advertising - in some contexts, publication of even objective, truthful advertisements might be restricted to ensure respect for the rights of others or owing to the special circumstances of particular business activities and professions. In the instant case, ban not an absolute one - restrictions on conduct of members of the Bar are based on their central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between public and   courts - rules governing the profession vary according to each country's cultural tradition - Council of Europe's member States moving at different rates towards a relaxation of the rules - national authorities better placed to determine how, at a given time, right balance can be struck between the various interests involved: the requirements of the proper administration of justice, the dignity of the profession, the right of everyone to receive information about legal assistance and affording members of the Bar the possibility of advertising. At the material time (1982-83) the penalty had not been disproportionate to the aim pursued. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two).   © 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