CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 janvier 2011

.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. 137 January 2011 Donaldson v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 56975/09 Decision 25.1.2011 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Prohibition on prisoner wearing potentially inflammatory emblems outside his cell: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant was serving a prison sentence in a segregated wing for republican prisoners in Northern Ireland. Pursuant to the regulations in force, prisoners were not permitted to wear emblems outside of their cells, an exception having been made in respect of wearing a shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day and a poppy on Remembrance Day. On Easter Sunday 2008 the applicant affixed an Easter lily to his outer clothing in commemoration of Irish republican combatants who had died during the 1916 uprising. After he refused to remove the emblem as ordered by a prison officer, the applicant was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and punished with three days of cellular confinement. His proceedings for judicial review were unsuccessful. Law – Article 10: The prison policy interfering with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression clearly pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and of protecting the rights of others. As to the proportionality of the measure, the States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in assessing which emblems could potentially inflame existing tensions, since cultural and political emblems had many levels of meaning which could only be fully understood by those knowing the historical background. The Easter lily was considered a symbol inextricably linked to the community conflict as it was worn in the memory of the killed republicans. It was therefore one of the many emblems deemed inappropriate in the workplace and in the communal areas of Northern Ireland’s prisons. Even though the level of offence caused by a particular emblem could not alone set the limits of freedom of expression, in times of conflict prisons were characterised by an acute risk of disorder and emblems more likely to be considered offensive were therefore more likely to spark violence and disorder if worn publicly. In the applicant’s case, the interference complained of was relatively narrow since it applied only to serving prisoners when they were outside their cells and in the circumstances was proportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing disorder. Since it was Easter holidays and there were an increased number of visits during those days, it was more likely that segregated prisoners might come into contact with other prisoners. Moreover, throughout the conflicts in Northern Ireland, prison officers had routinely been targeted by paramilitaries. The Court therefore accepted that the prohibition of wearing emblems for paramilitary prisoners was also necessary to ensure a safe working environment for the prison staff. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). The Court also declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Article   14 in conjunction with Article   10 and under Article 6 §   1.   © 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