CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 février 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149 February 2012 Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden - 1813/07 Judgment 9.2.2012 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Convictions for circulating homophobic leaflets at school: no violation   Facts – In July 2006 the applicants were convicted by the Supreme Court of agitation against a national or ethnic group after leaving homophobic leaflets in pupils’ lockers at an upper secondary school. The first three applicants were given suspended sentences combined with fines ranging from approximately EUR   200 to 2,000 and the fourth applicant was sentenced to probation. Law – Article 10: The applicants’ convictions constituted an interference that was “prescribed by law” and served the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. The Court agreed with the Supreme Court that, even if the applicants’ aim of starting a debate about the lack of objectivity of education in Swedish schools had been acceptable, it was necessary to have regard to the wording of the leaflets, which stated that homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a morally destructive effect” on society and was responsible for the development of HIV and AIDS. The leaflets further alleged that the “homosexual lobby” had tried to play down paedophilia. Even though they made no direct call for violence, these were serious and prejudicial allegations. While acknowledging the applicants’ right to express their ideas, the Supreme Court had found that the statements made in the leaflets were unnecessarily offensive. It had further emphasised that the applicants had imposed the leaflets on the pupils by leaving them in or on their lockers. The European Court noted that the pupils had been at an impressionable and sensitive age and that the distribution of the leaflets had taken place at a school which none of the applicants attended and to which they did not have free access. None of the applicants were given an immediate custodial sentence and the sentences they received were not excessive in the circumstances. Accordingly, the applicants’ convictions and sentences were not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the Supreme Court had given relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision. The interference could therefore reasonably have been regarded by the national authorities as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes