CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 novembre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     662   25.11.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 25 November 1999 in the case of Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom (application no. 25594/94), the European Court of Human Rights held by sixteen votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article 11 (right to freedom of assembly) of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 6,000 pounds sterling for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicants, Joseph Hashman and Wanda Harrup, two British nationals, live in Shaftesbury, in the United Kingdom.   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 (behaviour seen as “wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens”). The applicants were bound over “to be of good behaviour” for a period of one year.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19   August 1994. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 6 July 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (25 votes to 4).   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 1 November 1998.         Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, 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 Panţîru (Moldovan), Substitute Judges ,   and also Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaint   The applicants allege violation of Articles 10 and 11 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.   Decision of the Court   The principal matter for concern in the case was the question whether the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was “prescribed by law”, that is, whether it met the Convention criteria of foreseeability. The Court noted that the expression “to be of good behaviour”, that is, not to behave contra bonos mores (defined in English law as behaviour which is “wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens”) is particularly imprecise, and did not give the applicants sufficiently clear guidance as to how they should behave in future.   The Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, by 16 votes to one. The Court also found unanimously that it was not necessary to consider the remainder of the complaints.     Article 41   The Court awarded the applicants £6,000 for costs and expenses.   Judge Baka expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ).   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] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.