CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 juin 2001

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     484   28.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VGT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN v. SWITZERLAND     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (24699/94) [1] . The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant association 20,000 Swiss francs for costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken is a Swiss-registered association dedicated to the protection of animals. It produced a television commercial concerning animal welfare, in response to the adverts produced by the meat industry, which it intended to have broadcast by the Swiss Radio and Television Company. One scene showed a noisy hall with pigs in small pens and compared the conditions to those in concentration camps. The commercial ended with the words “eat less meat, for the sake of your health, the animals, and the environment”.   On 10 January 1994 the Commercial Television Company, responsible for television advertising, informed the association that it would not broadcast the commercial in view of its “clear political character”.   The applicant association filed a complaint, which was transmitted to the Federal Office of Communication, which informed the association on 25 April 1994 that the Commercial Television Company was free to purchase commercials and choose their contractual partners as they wished. A further complaint to the Federal Department for Transport and Energy was also dismissed. The association filed an administrative law appeal, which was dismissed by the Federal Court on 20 August 1997.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian) judges ,   and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant association complained that the refusal to broadcast its commercial was in violation of Article 10, that it had no effective remedy, relying on Article 13, and that it suffered discrimination, relying on Article 14, as the meat industry was permitted to broadcast commercials.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court observed that the commercial could be regarded as “political” within the meaning of S. 18 § 5 of the Federal Radio and Television Act as, rather than inciting the public to purchase a particular product, it reflected controversial opinions pertaining to modern society in general, lying at the heart of various political debates. It was, therefore, “foreseeable” for the applicant association that its commercial would not be broadcast and the interference with the applicant association’s freedom of expression was, therefore, “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.   The Court also noted both the view of the Federal Council, that S. 18 § 5 served to prevent financially powerful groups from obtaining a competitive advantage in politics, and the Federal Court’s judgment of 20 August 1997, which considered that the prohibition served to ensure the independence of the broadcaster, to spare the political process from undue commercial influence, to provide for a certain equality of opportunity between the different forces of society, and to support the press, which remained free to publish political advertisements. The Court was, therefore, satisfied that the measure was aimed at the “protection of the ... rights of others” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.   It followed that the Swiss authorities had a certain margin of appreciation to decide whether there was a “pressing social need” to refuse to broadcast the commercial. Such a margin of appreciation was particularly essential in commercial matters, especially in an area as complex and fluctuating as that of advertising.     However, the extent of the margin of appreciation was reduced, since what was at stake were not purely commercial interests, but participation in a debate affecting the general interest. The Court therefore considered whether the right balance had been struck between the applicant association’s freedom of expression and the reasons adduced by the Swiss authorities for the prohibition of political advertising.   The Court observed that powerful financial groups could obtain competitive advantages through commercial advertising and might thereby exercise pressure on, and eventually curtail the freedom of, the radio and television stations broadcasting the commercials. Such situations undermined the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention, particularly concerning information and ideas of general interest which the public were entitled to receive. This was especially important in relation to audio-visual media, whose programmes were often broadcast very widely.       However, noting that S.   18 § 5 was applied only to radio and television broadcasts, and not to other media such as the press, the Court found that a prohibition of political advertising, which applied only to certain media, did not appear to be a particularly pressing need . Moreover, it had not been argued that the applicant association itself constituted a powerful financial group which, with its proposed commercial, sought to endanger the independence of the broadcaster, to unduly influence public opinion, or to endanger the equality of opportunity between the different forces of society. Indeed, rather than abusing a competitive advantage, the applicant association intended only to participate in an ongoing general debate on animal protection and the rearing of animals. In the Court’s opinion, the domestic authorities had not justified the interference in the applicant association’s freedom of expression in a “relevant and sufficient” manner.   The domestic authorities did not adduce the disturbing nature of any particular sequence, or of any particular words, of the commercial as a ground for refusing to broadcast it. It therefore mattered little that the pictures and words employed in the commercial at issue may have appeared provocative or even disagreeable.   The Court further observed that the applicant association’s only means of reaching the entire Swiss public was through the national television programmes of the Swiss Radio and Television Company, which were the only programmes broadcast throughout Switzerland. Regional private television channels and foreign television stations could not be received throughout Switzerland.   Finding that the measure in issue could not be considered “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10.       Article 13   The Court noted that the Federal Court in its decision of 20 August 1997 dealt extensively and in substance with the applicant association’s complaints and there was therefore no breach of Article 13.   Article 14   Noting the Federal Court’s decision that the commercials produced by the meat industry and the applicant association were not comparable because they differed in their goals - the first aiming to increasing turnover and the second opposing industrial animal production - the Court found no violation of Article 14.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   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 Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.