CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2012

.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. 154 July 2012 Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC] - 16354/06 Judgment 13.7.2012 [GC] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Ban on displaying advertising poster in public owing to immoral conduct of publishers and reference to proselytising Internet site: no violation   Facts – The applicant is a non-profit association constituting the national branch of the Raelian Movement, whose declared aim is to make initial contact and establish good relations with extraterrestrials. In 2001 it sought permission from the police to put up posters which featured, among other things, pictures of extraterrestrials’ faces and a flying saucer and displayed the movement’s website address and telephone number. The authorisation was denied and appeals by the association were all rejected. In a judgment of 13 January 2011 (see Information Note no.   137), a Chamber of the Court found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   10 on the ground that the authorities had sufficient reason to consider necessary the denial of the authorisation requested by the applicant association, in view of the link to the website of Clonaid (a company offering specific illegal cloning services), possible sexual abuse of minors within the Movement and the promotion of “geniocracy” (a doctrine whereby power should be given to individuals with the highest intellect). Law – Article 10: The applicant association had sustained an interference prescribed by law in the exercise of its right to freedom of expression on account of the ban on the poster campaign that it sought to conduct. That measure had pursued the legitimate aims of the prevention of crime and the protection of health, morals and the rights of others. The present case raised the question whether the national authorities had to allow the applicant association to disseminate its ideas through its poster campaign by making public space available to it. The campaign in question sought mainly to draw the attention of the public to the ideas and activities of a group with a supposedly religious connotation that was conveying a message claimed to be transmitted by extraterrestrials, referring for this purpose to a website address. The website in question thus referred only incidentally to social or political ideas, because its main aim was to draw people to the cause of the applicant association. Even if the applicant association’s speech fell outside the commercial advertising context, it was nevertheless closer to commercial speech as it had a certain proselytising function. The State’s margin of appreciation was therefore broader. For that reason the management of public billboards in the context of campaigns that were not strictly political might vary from one State to another, or even from one region to another within the same State. Consequently, only serious reasons could lead the Court to substitute its own assessment for that of the national authorities. The impugned poster clearly had the aim of attracting people’s attention to the website: the address given in bold type above the slogan “The Message from Extraterrestrials”. The Court thus had to look not only at the poster itself but also at the content of the website. There was no issue concerning the efficiency of the judicial review. The domestic courts that had examined the case had given detailed reasons for the refusal to allow the poster campaign, namely, the promotion of human cloning and “geniocracy”, together with the possibility that the Movement’s writings and ideas had led to sexual abuse of minors by some of its members. Whilst some of those reasons taken separately might not be capable of justifying the ban on the posters, the domestic authorities had been entitled to consider that in view of the situation as a whole the ban had been indispensible. The Grand Chamber did not see any reason to depart from the Chamber’s findings in this connection. The concerns expressed by the domestic authorities had thus been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Moreover, the Chamber had found that the impugned measure was limited in scope, as the applicant association remained free to express its beliefs through numerous other means of communication. The applicant association had claimed that this position of the Chamber was contradictory. In the Court’s view, however, such a contradiction was no more than apparent. Like the Government, it found that a distinction had to be drawn between the aim of the association and the means that it used to achieve that aim. Accordingly, in the present case it might perhaps have been disproportionate to ban the association itself or its website on the basis of the above-mentioned factors. To limit the scope of the impugned restriction to the display of posters in public places was thus a way of ensuring the minimum impairment of the applicant association’s rights. As the applicant association had been able to continue to disseminate its ideas, in particular through its website or leaflets (placed in letter-boxes or handed out in the street), the impugned measure had not been disproportionate. Accordingly the national authorities had not overstepped the broad margin of appreciation afforded to them in this case; the grounds for their decisions had been “relevant and sufficient” and had corresponded to a “pressing social need”. The Court did not see any serious reason to substitute its own assessment for that of the court of last instance, which had examined the question carefully and in line with the principles laid down in the Court’s case-law. Conclusion : no violation (nine votes to eight).   © 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