CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   78 3.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT WOMEN ON WAVES AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Women on Waves and Others v. Portugal (application no. 31276/05), concerning the Portuguese authorities’ decision to prohibit the ship Borndiep , which had been chartered with a view to staging activities promoting the decriminalisation of abortion, from entering Portuguese territorial waters.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,309.40 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 1,500 already paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Women on Waves, a Dutch foundation based in Amsterdam, and two Portuguese associations, Clube Safo and Não te Prives (Group for the defence of sexual rights), based in Santarém and Coimbra (Portugal) respectively. The three applicant associations are particularly active in promoting debate on reproductive rights.   In 2004 Women on Waves chartered the ship Borndiep and sailed towards Portugal after being invited by the two other applicant associations to campaign in favour of the decriminalisation of abortion. Meetings on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, family planning and the decriminalisation of abortion were scheduled to take place on board from 30 August to 12 September 2004.   On 27 August 2004 the ship was banned from entering Portuguese territorial waters by a ministerial order, on the basis of maritime law and Portuguese health laws, and its entry was blocked by a Portuguese warship.   On 6 September 2004 the Administrative Court rejected a request by the applicant associations for an order allowing the ship’s immediate entry. The court took the view that the associations appeared to be intending to give Portuguese women access to abortion procedures and medicines that were illegal in Portugal.   The applicant associations appealed against that decision but without success. They subsequently applied to the Supreme Administrative Court, which found that the matter in dispute was not of sufficient legal or social significance to justify its intervention.   According to Women on Waves, a number of demonstrations in support of the three associations took place in Figueira da Foz and Lisbon and the situation attracted considerable media attention.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 August 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant associations complained under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) that the refusal to allow the Borndiep to enter Portuguese territorial waters was illegal. They also relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court decided, firstly, that in the light of the circumstances of the case, the situation complained of should be examined under Article 10 of the Convention alone.   While the Court acknowledged the legitimate aims pursued by the Portuguese authorities, namely the prevention of disorder and the protection of health, it reiterated that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness towards ideas that offended, shocked or disturbed were prerequisites for a “democratic society”.   It pointed out that the right to freedom of expression included the choice of the form in which ideas were conveyed, without unreasonable interference by the authorities, particularly in the case of symbolic protest activities. The Court considered that in this case, the restrictions imposed by the authorities had affected the substance of the ideas and information imparted. It noted that the choice of the Borndiep for the events planned by the applicant associations had been crucially important to them and in line with the activities which Women on Waves had carried out for some time in other European States.   The Court observed that the applicant associations had not trespassed on private land or publicly owned property, and noted the lack of sufficiently strong evidence of any intention on their part to deliberately breach Portuguese abortion legislation. It reiterated that freedom to express opinions in the course of a peaceful assembly could not be restricted in any way, so long as the person concerned did not commit any reprehensible acts.   The Court considered that in seeking to prevent disorder and protect health, the Portuguese authorities could have resorted to other means that were less restrictive of the applicant associations’ rights, such as seizing the medicines on board. It highlighted the deterrent effect for freedom of expression in general of such a radical act as dispatching a warship.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10 as the interference by the authorities had been disproportionate to the aims pursued.   Other Articles   The Court further held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.