''Handyside v United Kingdom'' (5493/72) was a case decided by the

European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a ...

in 1976. Its conclusion contains the famous phrase that: Nevertheless, the court did not find for the applicant, who had been fined for publishing a book deemed to be obscene.

Facts

Richard Handyside, proprietor of "Stage 1" publishers, purchased British rights of ''

The Little Red Schoolbook ''The Little Red Schoolbook'' ( da, Den Lille Røde Bog For Skoleelever; en, The Little Red Book For School Pupils) is a book written by two Danish schoolteachers, Søren Hansen and Jesper Jensen, first published in 1969. It was subject to mu ...

'', written by Søren Hansen and Jesper Jensen and published, as of 1976, in Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, as well as several non-European countries. Its chapter on pupils contained a 26-page section concerning "Sex". Handyside sent out several hundred review copies of the book, together with a press release, to a selection of publications from national and local newspapers to educational and medical journals. He also placed advertisements for the book. The book became subject of extensive press comment, both favourable and not. On 31 March 1971, 1,069 copies of the book were provisionally seized together with leaflets, posters, showcards, and correspondence relating to its publication and sale. On 1 April 1971, 139 more copies were seized. About 18,800 copies of a total print of 20,000 copies were missed and subsequently sold. On 8 April, a

magistrates' court A magistrates' court is a lower court where, in several jurisdictions, all criminal proceedings start. Also some civil matters may be dealt with here, such as family proceedings. Courts * Magistrates' court (England and Wales) * Magistrate's Cour ...

issued two summonses against Handyside for having in his possession obscene books for publication for gain. Handyside ceased distribution of the book and advised bookshops accordingly but, by that time, some 17,000 copies were already in circulation. On 1 July 1971, Handyside was found guilty of both offences and fined £25 on each summons and ordered to pay £110 costs. His appeal was rejected.

Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

The application was lodged by Handyside in 1972. In 1975, the

European Commission of Human Rights The European Commission of Human Rights was a special body of the Council of Europe. From 1954 to the entry into force of Protocol 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, individuals did not have direct access to the European Court of Hu ...

had adopted its report on the case, finding no violations of Convention rights, and specifically articles 10, 17, and P1-1 by a majority (no violation of article 18 was found unanimously). In 1976, court's chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the plenary court.

Judgment

Using the

margin of appreciation The margin of appreciation (or margin of state discretion) is a legal doctrine with a wide scope in international human rights law. It was developed by the European Court of Human Rights to judge whether a state party to the European Convention on ...

doctrine, the court held by thirteen votes to one that the interference in Handyside's

freedom of expression Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recogni ...

was both prescribed by law, having a legitimate aim and

necessary in a democratic society __NOTOC__ "Necessary in a democratic society" is a test found in Articles 8–11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that the state may impose restrictions of these rights only if such restrictions are "necessary in a democra ...

, thus there was no violation of article 10 ECHR. Importantly, the case bore considerable development for the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. The Court reasoned: Judge H. Mosler disagreed and filed a dissenting opinion, considering that violation did take place due to interference not being necessary. The court had also held unanimously that Handyside's property rights (article 1 of protocol 1) were not violated. Judge M. Zekia filed a concurring opinion in this question.

References

External links

ECtHR judgmentReport of the European Commission of Human Rights
{{DEFAULTSORT:Handyside v United Kingdom Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom Obscenity law Freedom of expression in the United Kingdom 1976 in case law 1976 in British law