CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juillet 2002

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 44 July 2002 Murphy v. Ireland (dec.) - 44179/98 Decision 9.7.2002 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Ban on broadcasting of radio advertisement for religious meeting: admissible The applicant is a pastor attached to a Bible-based Christian ministry, the Irish Faith Centre. Relying on section 10 § 3 of the Radio and Television Act 1988, the authorities banned the broadcast of a short radio advertisement which the Irish Faith Centre had prepared to publicise a forthcoming religious meeting. The applicant appealed against this decision, on the ground either that the Act had been wrongly applied or that it was unconstitutional. The High Court found that the Act had been applied correctly and that in any case it presented a reasonable limitation on the right to communicate and thus could not be deemed unconstitutional. The applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. Admissible under Articles 9 and 10.   © 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