The applicant association dedicated itself to the protection of animals, from animal experiments and industrial animal production. In reaction to television commercials broadcast by the meat industry it prepared a TV advertisement contrasting the behaviour of pigs in their natural environment with their treatment in the course of industrial production. The theme of the advert was ‘eat less meat, for the sake of your health, the animals, and the environment’ and the content of the advert was not in any way objectionable. The Commercial Television Company, responsible for handling commercial advertising on behalf of the Swiss Radio and Television Company, declined to broadcast the advert because of its clear political character.
Held: The association’s complaint was not without merit. The respondent argued that no one had a right to television time and that article 10 was not engaged, but the court held that it was. Prima facie, anyone was entitled to whatever television time for commercials he could afford to buy. A refusal to allow anyone a commercial on the grounds of the content of his broadcast was a discrimination requiring justification. There was no sufficient justification for discriminating against political advertising ‘in the particular circumstances of the applicant association’s case.’
24699/94, (2002) 34 EHRR 159, [2001] ECHR 412, (2002) 34 EHRR 4
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
Distinguished – Murphy v Ireland ECHR 10-Jul-2003
A pastor attached to an evangelical protestant centre based in Dublin wished to broadcast an advertisement during the week before Easter 1995, but the broadcast was stopped by the Independent Radio and Television Commission because section 10(3) of . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
Cited – Core Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Media
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.164845