CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 décembre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 114 December 2008 TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway - 21132/05 Judgment 11.12.2008 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Imposition of a fine on a television station for having broadcast an advertisement by a small political party, in breach of the statutory prohibition of any televised political advertising: violation   Facts : The applicants were a television company and the regional branch of a small political party (the Pensioners Party). TV Vest was fined on the ground that it had broadcast political adverts for the Pensioners Party in breach of the statutory prohibition on such adverts. The prohibition at issue was permanent and absolute and applied only to television; political advertising in other media was permitted. TV Vest unsuccessfully contested the fine before the courts. Law : The Court was prepared to accept that the lack of European consensus in this area spoke in favour of granting States greater discretion than would normally be allowed in decisions with regard to restrictions on political debate. The rationale for the statutory prohibition on television broadcasting of political advertising had been, as stated by the Supreme Court, the assumption that allowing the use of such a powerful and pervasive form and medium of expression was likely to reduce the quality of political debate generally. Complex issues could easily be distorted and financially powerful groups would get greater opportunities for marketing their opinions. However, the Pensioners Party did not come within the category of parties or groups that were the primary targets of the prohibition. On the contrary, it belonged to a category which the ban in principle had intended to protect. Furthermore, in contrast to the major political parties, which had been given wide edited television coverage, the Pensioners Party had hardly been mentioned. Therefore, paid advertising on television had been the sole means for the Pensioners Party to get its message across to the public through that type of medium. Having been denied this possibility under the law, the Pensioners Party had moreover been put at a disadvantage in comparison to the major parties. Finally, the specific advertising at issue, namely a short description of the Pensioners Party and a call to vote for it in the forthcoming elections, had not contained elements apt to lower the quality of political debate or offend various sensitivities. In those circumstances, the fact that television had a more immediate and powerful effect than other media could not justify the prohibition and fine imposed on TV Vest. There had not, therefore, been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim pursued by the prohibition and the means deployed to achieve that aim. The restriction which the prohibition and the imposition of the fine had entailed on the applicants' exercise of their freedom of expression could not therefore be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society, notwithstanding the margin of appreciation available to the national authorities. Conclusion : violation (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