CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 1999

.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 12 November 1999 Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 25594/94 Judgment 25.11.1999 [GC] Article 10 Article 10-2 Prescribed by law Foreseeability Binding over to be of good behaviour - conduct contra bonos mores : violation (Extract from press release) Facts : The applicants, Joseph Hashman and Wanda Harrup, two British nationals, live in Shaftesbury, in the United Kingdom. In March 1993, the applicants who were “hunt saboteurs”, disturbed the Portman Hunt. On 7   September 1993 they were bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour in the sum of £100. They appealed to the Crown Court in Dorchester where, on 22   April 1994 the first applicant was found to have blown a hunting horn. The second applicant was found to have shouted at hounds. The court considered that this behaviour had been a deliberate attempt to interfere with the hunt, and that the applicants’ actions had been unlawful, and had exposed hounds to danger. It considered, however, that as there had been no violence or threat of it, there had been no breach of the peace. The behaviour was found to have been contra bonos mores (behaviour seen as “wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens”). The applicants were bound over “to be of good behaviour” for a period of one year. The applicants allege violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Their main complaint is that the concept of behaviour contra bonos mores is so broadly defined that it does not comply with the requirement, in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, that any interference with freedom of expression must be “prescribed by law”. They also claim that, even if the interference was “prescribed by law”, the binding over in this case was a disproportionate interference with their freedom of expression. Law : Article 10 - The principal matter for concern in the case was the question whether the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was “prescribed by law”, that is, whether it met the Convention criteria of foreseeability. The Court noted that the expression “to be of good behaviour”, that is, not to behave contra bonos mores (defined in English law as behaviour which is “wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens”) is particularly imprecise, and did not give the applicants sufficiently clear guidance as to how they should behave in future. Conclusion : violation (16 votes to 1). The Court also found unanimously that it was not necessary to consider the remainder of the complaints. Article 41 - The Court awarded the applicants £6,000 for costs and expenses.   © 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