David BRIND v United Kingdom - 18714/91 [1994] ECHR 57 (9 May 1994)

David BRIND v United Kingdom - 18714/91 [1994] ECHR 57 (9 May 1994)

The Commission found that the broadcasting restrictions were prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims of national security and prevention of disorder or crime, and were proportionate to those aims given the limited extent of interference and the margin of appreciation afforded to States in combating terrorism. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] ECHR 57
Parties
Applicant: David Brind; Applicant: Fred Albert Emery; Applicant: Alexander Graham; Applicant: Victoria Leonard; Applicant: Scarlett McGwire; Applicant: John Richard Pilger; Applicant: Thomas Edward Nash; Respondent: United Kingdom
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
09 May 1994
Procedural Posture
Application to European Commission of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision
Outcome
Application inadmissible
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Broadcasting Restrictions, Effective Remedy, Proportionality, National Security
Human Rights Law Media Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Broadcasting Restrictions Effective Remedy Proportionality National Security

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Brind

Applicant

Fred Albert Emery

Applicant

Alexander Graham

Applicant

Victoria Leonard

Applicant

Scarlett McGwire

Applicant

John Richard Pilger

Applicant

Thomas Edward Nash

Applicant

United Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Commission of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether broadcasting restrictions imposed by the Home Secretary violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the broadcasting restrictions were prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims of national security and prevention of disorder or crime, and were proportionate to those aims given the limited extent of interference and the margin of appreciation afforded to States in combating terrorism. The applicants' claims under Articles 10 and 13 were manifestly ill-founded.

Court Disposition

Application inadmissible