xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more
Law Cases
Administrative Law Cases
Control of discretion Cases

Handyside v UK, ECtHR Judgment of 1976 (ECHR) [1979] 1 EHRR 737

Country:
United Kingdom
By Oxbridge Law Team
Court’s judgment

  • Case before European Court of Human Rights. Defendant produced a book that was banned under Obscene Publications Act in England.

  • Defendant claimed a breach of his convention right of freedom of expression under article 10.

  • However the court, by 13-1 ruled that the ban was 'necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of morals' under Article 10 (2) i.e. using the qualification to article 10 to show that the ban was acceptable.

    • “Necessary” was taken to refer to “pressing social need”, and was NOT synonymous with “indispensable”.

    • The convention had given national legislators a “margin of appreciation” with regard to convention rights.

Court’s judgment

It is not possible to find in the domestic law of the various Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals. The view taken by their respective laws of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in our era which is characterised by a rapid and far-reaching evolution of opinions on the subject.

By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements as well as on the 'necessity' of a 'restriction' or 'penalty' intended to meet them.

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch

Similar cases

Regina (ProLife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation
The BBC, under legislation, has certain standards of non-offensiveness etc. and a party who were entitled to an election broadcast submitted a video that would have breached these standards. Therefor...
Tolstoy v United Kingdom
Plaintiff was successfully sued for libel when he published a pamphlet claiming that X had been involved in bad treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs). He was restricted from publishing material with “...
Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte
The BBC, under legislation, has certain standards of non-offensiveness, etc. and a party who were entitled to an election broadcast submitted a video that would have breached these standards. Therefo...
R (Lord Carlile) v Home Secretary
The Human Rights Act subject’s decisions involving interference with Convention rights to independent judicial review. Courts must assess whether convincing reasons justify such interferences. Articl...
Regina v F
Defendants were convicted of being in possession of material likely to be useful for terrorism. Defendants appealed on the basis that the relevant act only offered protection against democratic state...

Related free notes samples

Freedom Of Expression Notes
European Human Rights law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge, UK. These not

logo

Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.

©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.