CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 septembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   414 7.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today, Tuesday 7 September 2004 at 9.30 a.m., on the merits in the case of Steel and Morris v. United Kingdom (application   no. 68416/01).     The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by two United Kingdom nationals, Helen Steel and David Morris, who were born in 1965 and 1954 respectively and live in London (U.K.). During the relevant period Mr Morris was unemployed and Ms Steel was either unemployed or on a low wage (earning approximately 65 pounds sterling (GBP) per week). Both were associated with London Greenpeace, a small group, unconnected with Greenpeace International, which campaigned principally on environmental and social issues.   Summary of the facts   In the mid-1980s London Greenpeace began an anti-McDonald’s campaign. In 1986 a six-page leaflet entitled “What’s wrong with McDonald’s?” (“the factsheet”) was produced and distributed as part of that campaign.   On 20 September 1990 McDonald’s Corporation (“US McDonald’s”) and McDonald’s Restaurants Limited (“UK McDonald’s”) issued a writ against the applicants claiming damages for libel allegedly caused by the alleged publication by the defendants of the factsheet.   The applicants denied publication, denied that the words complained of had the meanings attributed to them by McDonald’s and denied that all or some of the meanings were capable of being defamatory. Further, they contended, in the alternative, that the words were substantially true or else were fair comment on matters of fact.   The applicants were refused legal aid and so represented themselves throughout the trial and appeal, with only some help from volunteer lawyers. They submit that they were severely hampered by lack of resources, not just in the way of legal advice and representation, but also when it came to administration, photocopying, note-taking, and the tracing, preparation and payment of the costs and expenses of expert and factual witnesses. Throughout the proceedings McDonald’s were represented by leading and junior counsel, experienced in defamation law, and by one or two solicitors and other assistants.   The trial took place before a judge sitting alone between 28 June 1994 and 13 December 1996. It lasted for 313 court days and was the longest trial in English legal history.   In his judgment of 19   June   1997 the trial judge found that the applicants had published the factsheet and awarded damages to US McDonald’s and UK   McDonald’s. A number of the messages in the leaflet were also found to be untrue, including: that McDonald’s was to blame for starvation in the Third World and had used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of rainforest, or forced tribal people in the rainforest off their ancestral territories; and, that there was a very real risk of contracting cancer of the breast or bowel or heart disease as a result of eating McDonald’s food, and that McDonald’s knew this but did not make it clear.   However, the judge also ruled that false claims had been made about the positive nutritional benefits of McDonald’s food in advertisements, promotions and booklets, that children were exploited by McDonald’s who used them as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going into McDonald’s and that McDonald’s were “culpably responsible” for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which were used to produce their food. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the defamatory allegations in the leaflet concerning pay and conditions were “comment” and that the allegation that people eating enough McDonald’s food ran a very real risk of contracting heart disease was justified. The court reduced the damages payable to McDonald’s, making Ms Steel liable for GBP   36,000 and Mr Morris for GBP   40,000.   Complaints   The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the proceedings were unfair, principally because they were denied legal aid, and, under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression), that the proceedings and their outcome constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 20 September 2000 and declared admissible on 6 April 2004.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran) , Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnian) , Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger) , substitute judges ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .     Representatives of the parties   Government :   Derek Walton , Agent ,   Philip Sales , Counsel ,   Alec Brown,   David Willink,   Robert Wright , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Keir Starmer ,   Mark Stephens,   Anthony Hudson, Counsel ,   Parisa Wright, Adviser.     The applicants will also attend the hearing.   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A judgment will be delivered at a later date.     ***     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.