CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 janvier 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 214 January 2018 Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania - 69317/14 Judgment 30.1.2018 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Fine imposed on commercial company for running clothing advertisements depicting religious figures: violation Facts – The applicant company was fined the equivalent of EUR 580 by the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority for breaching Article 4 §   2   (1) of the Law on Advertising for running an advertising campaign violating public morals. The campaign took the form of a series of advertisements showing models in designer wear with captions reading “Jesus, what trousers!”, “Dear Mary, what a dress!” and “Jesus [and] Mary, what are you wearing!”. The applicant company’s appeals to the domestic courts were dismissed. Law – Article 10: The fine imposed on the applicant company constituted an interference with its right to freedom of expression, which interference pursued the legitimate aims of protecting morals arising from the Christian faith and the right of religious people not to be insulted on the grounds of their beliefs. The Court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether the interference was prescribed by law as, in any event, it had not been necessary in a democratic society. Firstly, the advertisements (which created an unmistakable resemblance between the persons depicted and religious figures) were not intended to contribute to any public debate concerning religion or any other matters of general interest, so the national authorities’ margin of appreciation was correspondingly broader. Secondly, the advertisements did not on their face appear to be gratuitously offensive or profane or to incite hatred on the grounds of religious belief or attack a religion in an unwarranted or abusive manner. Accordingly, it was for the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons why the advertisements were nonetheless contrary to public morals. Thirdly, the reasons provided by the domestic courts and other authorities could not be considered relevant and sufficient as (i)   the authorities had not sufficiently explained why the reference to religious symbols in the advertisements was offensive or why a lifestyle which was “incompatible with the principles of a religious person” would necessarily be incompatible with public morals; (ii)   the authorities had not addressed the applicant company’s argument that the names of Jesus and Mary in the advertisements had been used not as religious references but as emotional interjections common in spoken Lithuanian, thereby creating a comic effect; (iii)   even though all the domestic decisions referred to “religious people”, the only religious group which had been consulted in the domestic proceedings had been the Roman Catholic Church, despite the presence of various other Christian and non-Christian religious communities in Lithuania; and (iv)   even assuming the Government were right in suggesting that the advertisements must have been considered offensive by the majority of the Lithuanian population who shared the Christian faith, it would be incompatible with the underlying values of the Convention if the exercise of Convention rights by a minority group were made conditional on its being accepted by the majority. In sum, the domestic authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the protection of public morals and the rights of religious people, and, on the other, the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. The wording of their decisions demonstrated that the authorities had given absolute primacy to protecting the feelings of religious people, without adequately taking into account the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 580 in respect of pecuniary damage.   © 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