Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 137
January 2011
Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland - 16354/06
Judgment 13.1.2011 [Section I]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Ban on displaying advertising poster in public owing to immoral conduct of publishers and reference in poster to banned Internet site: no violation
[This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 20 June 2011]
Facts – The applicant is a non-profit association constituting the national branch of the Raelian Movement, with the stated aim of making initial contact and developing good relations with extraterrestrials. In 2001 it sought permission from the police to put up posters which featured pictures of extraterrestrials’ faces and a flying saucer and displayed the Movement’s Internet address and telephone number. Permission to put up the posters was refused, and subsequent appeals by the association were all dismissed.
Law – Article 10: The applicant association had suffered interference with its freedom of expression by not having been allowed to impart its ideas through the poster campaign. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing crime, protecting health and morals and protecting the rights of others. It was undisputed that the poster in itself did not contain anything unlawful or shocking to the public, either in its wording or in the illustrations. However, it featured, in bold type, the association’s website address, which linked to the Clonaid site, where specific cloning services prohibited by law were on offer to the public. Since the websites in question were per se accessible to everyone, including children, the public impact of the posters would have been amplified and the State’s interest in prohibiting the poster campaign was all the greater. Accordingly, the authorities had had sufficient grounds for finding it necessary to refuse the permission sought by the applicant association, having regard to the link to the Clonaid site, the Raelian Movement’s possibly sexually deviant attitudes towards under-age children and its promotion of “geniocracy”, a theory that power should be given to individuals with a high intellectual coefficient. Lastly, the ban in question was strictly limited to the display of posters in public places. Accordingly, the national authorities had not overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them with regard to extended use of public space. They had also given relevant and sufficient reasons in support of their position. The prohibition of the poster campaign had therefore been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the very essence of the applicant association’s freedom of expression had not been impaired.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy