Individual and the State Law Exam with a problem question on Article 10 of the ECHR and an essay on the ECHR's approach to the threshold requirement in Article 15 ECHR. The grades and feedback for each question is shown at the end.
Larry and Shortman Publishing (Hate Speech Act and Public Morals Act)
Is the case within the scope of Article 10?
The writing and publication of the book enjoy a high level of protection under Article 10 even where part of the
contents may shock, offend, or disturb (Handyside v UK). The margin of appreciation afforded is narrow due to
the expression contributing to the public debate (Sunday Times v UK).
Has there been an interference?
Page 1 of 11
, There have been several interferences with Article 10: Larry’s arrest and prosecution, even despite his
acquittal (Otegi Mondragon v Spain); both applicants’ 2,000 Crilandese pounds fine (Kasabova v Bulgaria);
and the prohibition of further publication of the book in its current form (Cumhueriyet Vakfi and Others v
Turkey).
Is the interference justified?
A. Is it prescribed by law?
Interferences with Article 10 must have some basis in domestic law and be accessible and foreseeable. In this
case, they are all prescribed by statute: the arrest and prosecution under s.2 of the Hate Speech Act and the
fines and ban of publication of the book under s.3 of the Public Morals Act.
B. Does it serve a legitimate aim?
The interferences serve the legitimate aim of the protection of public morality, as prescribed by Article 10(2).
C. Is it necessary in a democratic society?
Although the State is afforded a wide margin of appreciation to decide if there is a pressing social need
(Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland), as the book is potentially homophobic, it is reasonable to believe
that the public, particularly the concerned minority, would be offended by the expression. Therefore, there is a
pressing social need.
The interferences must also be no greater than necessary. Larry’s arrest and prosecution (albeit acquitted) are
manifestly disproportionate, especially when combined with a fine (Amorin Gietas and Jesus Costa Bordalo v
Portugal), due to the chilling effect they have on Article 10, rendering it very difficult to justify by reference to
the protection of public morals (Eon v France). Independently, the fines may be justifiable, although 2000
Crilandese pounds is a sizeable amount. Whilst this may be reasonable for Shortman publishing as a
company, it may be overly harsh economically on Larry as an individual (Delfi AS v. Estonia). The ban of
Page 2 of 11
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur legalwarrior1. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €8,93. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
