CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 août 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .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. August 1998 Hertel v. Switzerland - 25181/94 Judgment 25.8.1998 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Following publication of article, private individual prohibited under Federal Law from stating that consumption of food prepared in microwave ovens was danger to human health: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Not disputed that there had been an interference. A.   “Prescribed by law” Recapitulation of Court’s case-law. “Foreseeability” of prohibition. B.   Legitimate aim Protection of rights of others. C.   “Necessary in a democratic society” Recapitulation of Court’s case-law. Authorities had margin of appreciation to decide whether there had been a “pressing social need” – margin was particularly essential in commercial matters – nevertheless, margin was reduced in case before Court as applicant had not made purely commercial statements, but had participated in a debate affecting the general interest. Applicant had not had anything to do with editing or writing of publication in question – statements definitely attributable to him were on whole qualified – nothing to suggest that they had had any substantial impact on plaintiff’s interests – scope of injunction – measure not necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (six votes to three). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION No separate issue arose Conclusion : not necessary to decide issue (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: No causal link established.   B.   Costs and expenses: Recapitulation of case-law. Payment of sums in respect of proceedings in domestic courts and before Strasbourg institutions. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant (eight votes to one).   © 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