CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Palusinski v. Poland (dec.) - 62414/00 Decision 3.10.2006 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for publication of a book inciting readers to use drugs: inadmissible   In 1994 the applicant published a book called “Narcotics – the guide”. Having relied on the expert assessment of the contents of the book, the court convicted the applicant of inciting the readers to use drugs and sentenced him to a fifteen‑month prison term suspended for two years, and a fine. Even though the views expressed by the applicant were against the domestic anti‑drug policy, the Court was not convinced by the Government’s argument that the applicant sought to employ Article   10 as a basis for a right to engage in activities aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention within the meaning of Article   17. His conviction constituted a lawful interference with his right to freedom of expression and had been aimed at the protection of health and morals. The Court endorsed the domestic courts’ findings that the book had offered very little, if any, information on the negative consequences of the use of drugs or on possible addictions. It had included instructions on how to obtain ingredients, how to prepare them, etc. It could not be said that the domestic courts’ assessment of the facts had been unacceptable or that they had failed to apply the standards embodied in Article   10. Given that the applicant had stood to gain financially by publishing the book, a suspended prison sentence and a fine could not be regarded as disproportionate. In sum, the national courts could not be said to have exceeded their wide margin of appreciation in the area of protection of public health and morals. The interference complained of could thus be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”: manifestly ill‑founded .   © 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