European court decisions
01 January 1993
Freedom of expression
Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd v Ireland 29.10.92: the European Court of Human Rights held that the injunction granted by the Irish Supreme Court in 1988 against the applicants was a violation of their right to freedom of expression protected by Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The injunction restrained the applicants from assisting pregnant women to travel abroad to obtain abortions, making travel arrangements or informing the women of the identity and location of clinics in Britain. The court held that it was over-broad and inappropriate; the applicants were counselling, not advocating abortion the information was available elsewhere, and women who did not get the information in time could risk their health by seeking late abortions.
Thorgeron v Iceland June 1992: The applicant was charged with defaming civil servants and sentenced after writing articles about police brutality. This was a violation of Art 10 of the European Human Rights Convention (the right to freedom of expression) according to the judgment of the European Court on Human Rights.
Demicoli v Malta 27.8.91: The editor of a political-satirical weekly was found guilty of breach of privilege for a report containing "offensive references" to politicians. The Court (ECHR) held that his trial violated Art 6 and was not fair.
Oberschlick v Austria 23.5.91: the European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a journalist for defamation violated his right to freedom of expression (Art 10) and the right to a fair trial (Art 6). The journalist published an account of an information which had been laid against a politician, Grabher- Meyer, alleging incitement to racial hatred and activities contrary to the National Socialism Prohibition Act. The journalist was convicted and fined and the journal was seized on the ground that his article "insinuated that the politician held Nazi attitudes".
Ezelin v France 26.4.91: a Guadeloupe lawyer was disciplined by the Bar Council after taking part in a demonstration against the sentencing of independence activists. The disciplinary proceedings were a violation of the right of freedom of assembly (Art 11).
Michael Kuhner v FRG 12.5.88: The conviction of a neo-nazi journalist for advocating the return of National Socialism and race discrimination was an interference with freedom of expression necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and public safety and for the protection of the rights of others. The complaint was manifestly unfounded.
Detention
In 1990 and 1991, the Court held that detention under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 was unlawful, violating Art 5, since detention was not justified on grounds of 'reasonable suspicion' (
Fox Campbell, Hartley v UK). The British government reported back that since then s11 (the offending section of the Act) has been replaced by s6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, in which the power of entry and search is subject to the power of arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The latter is subject to reasonable grounds for suspicion. The UK government claims it is under no obligation to legislate for an enforceable right to compensation for unlawful arrest (Art 5 para 5).
On 25 October 1990 the court held that the parole arrangements for discretionary lifers violated Art 5 (
Thynne Wilson & Gunnell v UK). The British government reported back that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which came into force in October 1992, give the Parole Board power to direct, rather than merely recommend the release of a discretionary lifer to the Home Secretary, and give the prisoner a right to have his case referred to the Board at regular intervals.
O'Neill v UK; Kelly v UK 29.9.92: the European Commission on Human Rights declared inadmissible complaints of detentions p