MOUVEMENT RAELIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND - 16354/06 [2011] ECHR 1832 (13 January 2011)

MOUVEMENT RAELIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND - 16354/06 [2011] ECHR 1832 (13 January 2011)

The prohibition of the applicant association's poster campaign was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (prevention of crime, protection of health/morals, rights of others), and was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The restriction did not impair the essence of the applicant's right to freedom of expression, as alternative means of communication remained available. The authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons, and did not overstep their margin of appreciation.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 1832
Parties
Applicant Association: Mouvement Raelien Suisse; Respondent Government: Swiss Confederation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by Chamber, First Section, European Court of Human Rights
Outcome
Application admissible; no violation of Article 10; no need to examine Article 9 separately.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Use of Public Space, Proportionality, Legitimate Restrictions
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religion Use of Public Space Proportionality Legitimate Restrictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mouvement Raelien Suisse

Applicant Association

Swiss Confederation

Respondent Government

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by Chamber, First Section, European Court of Human Rights

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prohibition of poster campaign breached freedom of expression under Article 10
  2. 2 Whether prohibition breached freedom of religion under Article 9
  3. 3 Whether restriction was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition of the applicant association's poster campaign was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (prevention of crime, protection of health/morals, rights of others), and was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The restriction did not impair the essence of the applicant's right to freedom of expression, as alternative means of communication remained available. The authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons, and did not overstep their margin of appreciation.

Court Disposition

Application admissible; no violation of Article 10; no need to examine Article 9 separately.

Orders

  • Application declared admissible
  • No violation of Article 10 of the Convention