CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 juin 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s5E71CDDF { width:2.64pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     354   23.6.1999       Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF HASHMAN & HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Wednesday, 23 June 1999, at 2.30 p.m.       The applicants     The case concerns an application (application no.   25594/94) brought by two British nationals, Joseph Hashman and Wanda Harrup, who live in Shaftesbury, in the United Kingdom.   Summary of the facts     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 . The applicants were bound over “to be of good behaviour” for a period of one year.   Complaints     The applicants allege violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly) 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.   Procedure     In its report of 6 July 1998, the Commission found, by 25 votes to 4, that the concept of conduct contra bonos mores was so generally defined that it was not possible to gauge in advance whether conduct was likely to fall within the ambit of the term. It concluded that the necessary protection from the risk of arbitrary interference was lacking, and that there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as the interference was not “prescribed by law”. Composition of the Court     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998. It will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Judges , Lord Reed , (British), ad hoc Judge , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Substitute Judges ,   and also Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Martin Eaton , Agent , John Morris , QC, Attorney General, Rabinder Singh , Marie Demetriou , Counsel , Christine Stewart , Steven Bramley , Home Office, Advisers ;   Applicants:   Peter Codner , Counsel .     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.       ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91       The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   On November 1 1998 a permanent Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Court and Commission.