003-3837416-4406280

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 050 (2012)   09.02.2012   Criminal conviction for distributing leaflets offensive to   homosexuals was not contrary to freedom of expression   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden   (application no. 1813/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on   Human Rights   The case concerned the applicants’ conviction in 2005 for distributing in an upper   secondary school approximately 100 leaflets considered by the courts to be offensive to   homosexuals.   Principal facts   The applicants, Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, Mattias Harlin, Björn Täng and Niklas Lundström,   are Swedish nationals who were born in 1978, 1981, 1987 and 1986 respectively.   Mr Vejdeland lives in Gothenburg and the other applicants live in Sundsvall (Sweden).   In December 2004 the applicants, together with three other persons, went to an upper   secondary school and distributed approximately a hundred leaflets by an organisation   called National Youth, by leaving them in or on the pupils’ lockers. The school’s principal   intervened and made them leave the premises. The statements in the leaflets were, in   particular, allegations that homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a   morally destructive effect on the substance of society” and was responsible for the   development of HIV and AIDS.   The applicants claimed that they had not intended to express contempt for homosexuals   as a group and stated that the purpose of their activity had been to start a debate about   the lack of objectivity in the education in Swedish schools. The District Court found that   the applicants’ intention had been to express contempt for homosexuals and convicted   them of agitation against a national or ethnic group. The charges against the applicants   were rejected on appeal, on the ground that a conviction would amount to a violation of   their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the European Convention on   Human Rights.   On 6 July 2006 the Supreme Court convicted the applicants of agitation against a   national or ethnic group. The majority of judges found in particular that the pupils had   not had the possibility to refuse the leaflets and that the purpose of supplying the pupils   with arguments for a debate could have been achieved without offensive statements to   homosexuals as a group. The first three applicants were given suspended sentences   combined with fines ranging from approximately 200 to 2,000 euros and the fourth   applicant was sentenced to probation.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants alleged that the Supreme Court convicting them of agitation against a   national or ethnic group had constituted a violation of their freedom of expression under   Article 10 of the Convention. They further submitted that they had been punished   without law in violation of Article 7.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 January   2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,   Elisabet Fura (Sweden),   Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),   Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),   Angelika Nußberger (Germany), Judges,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.   INTERIGHTS (the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights) and the   International Commission of Jurists submitted observations in their capacity as third-   party interveners in the proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention). The observations   are set out in the judgment (§§ 41-46).   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The applicants were convicted of agitation against a national or ethnic group in   accordance with the Swedish Penal Code. The Court therefore considered that the   interference with their freedom of expression had been sufficiently clear and foreseeable   and thus “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the Convention. The interference had   served a legitimate aim, namely “the protection of the reputation and rights of others”   (Article 10 § 2).   The Court agreed with the Supreme Court that, even if the applicants’ objective to start   a debate about the lack of objectivity of education in Swedish schools had been an   acceptable aim, regard had to be paid to the wording of the leaflets. According to the   leaflets, homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a morally destructive   effect” on society and was responsible for the development of HIV and AIDS. The leaflets   further alleged that the “homosexual lobby” tried to play down paedophilia. These   statements had constituted serious and prejudicial allegations, even if they had not been   a direct call to hateful acts. The Court stressed that discrimination based on sexual   orientation was as serious as discrimination based on “race, origin or colour”.   While acknowledging the applicants’ right to express their ideas, the Supreme Court had   found that the leaflets’ statements had been unnecessarily offensive. It had further   emphasised that the applicants had imposed the leaflets on the pupils by leaving them   on or in their lockers. The Court noted that the pupils had been at an impressionable and   sensitive age and that the distribution of the leaflets had taken place at a school which   none of the applicants attended and to which they did not have free access.   Three of the applicants were given suspended sentences combined with fines ranging   from approximately EUR 200 to EUR 2,000, and the fourth applicant was sentenced to   probation. The Court did not find these penalties excessive in the circumstances as the   crime of which they had been convicted had carried a penalty of up to two years’   imprisonment.   The Court therefore considered that the interference with the applicants’ exercise of their   right to freedom of expression had reasonably been regarded by the Swedish authorities   as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of   others. The Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10.   Article 7   Having regard to the finding under Article 10 that the measure complained of was   “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the Convention, the Court declared the   applicants’ complaint under Article 7 inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   Separate Opinions   Concurring opinions were expressed by: Judge Spielmann joined by Judge Nußberger;   Judge Zupančič; and Judge Yudkivska joined by Judge Villiger. These opinions are   annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   On the occasion of the judgment’s delivery in the case of Vejdeland and Others v.   Sweden, a Factsheet on “Hate Speech” was released on the Court’s website.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3