I could put these into context, but some of the comments that appear to be coming from ignorance I will not even try
“The justification for considering advertising a protected form of speech is that an individual
(consumer) has got the right to receive information helping him or her to make an informed choice,
regardless of whether this information concerns a political party or candidate s/he should vote for
or the characteristics of a product s/he is planning on to buy” Jayawickrama (supra note 26), p.
677
16
Commission ECHR
“On another occasion the Commission expressed more clearly the view that commercial
speech was protected by the Convention, noting that it had “earlier expressed the
opinion that commercial advertisements and promotional campaigns [were] as such
protected by Article 10 § 1” Ingemar liljenberg v. Sweden5
Court ECHR
“Neither the financial element nor the competitionrelated
promotional statements are
excluded from the ambit of protection of Art. 10 ECHR.” B arthold v Germany 18
Court ECHR
“The profitmaking purpose is considered irrelevant” Casado Coca v Spain 17
Court ECHR
“The Court ECHR noted that it does not distinguish between various forms of
expression. Consequently all expression, whatever its content, falls within the scope of
Article 10 ECHR. The key question is therefore the scrutiny of the justification for
interference under Art. 10 (2) ECHR” Munro , The Value of Commercial Speech, (2003) 3
Cambridge Law Journal , 138.
Court ECHR
“Where there has been an interference in the exercise of the rights and freedoms
guaranteed in paragraph 1 of Article 10, the supervision must be strict, because of the
importance of the rights in question; the importance of these rights has been stressed by
the Court many times. The necessity for restricting them must be convincingly
established.” Autronic AG v. Switzerland6
Court ECHR:
“In exercising its power of review, the Court assesses the proportionality of a restriction
on freedom of expression to the aim pursued. Any interference disproportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued will not be deemed “necessary in a democratic society” and will
thus contravene Article 10 of the Convention." Autronic AG v.Switzerland15
“The justification for considering advertising a protected form of speech is that an individual
(consumer) has got the right to receive information helping him or her to make an informed choice,
regardless of whether this information concerns a political party or candidate s/he should vote for
or the characteristics of a product s/he is planning on to buy” Jayawickrama (supra note 26), p.
677
16
Commission ECHR
“On another occasion the Commission expressed more clearly the view that commercial
speech was protected by the Convention, noting that it had “earlier expressed the
opinion that commercial advertisements and promotional campaigns [were] as such
protected by Article 10 § 1” Ingemar liljenberg v. Sweden5
Court ECHR
“Neither the financial element nor the competitionrelated
promotional statements are
excluded from the ambit of protection of Art. 10 ECHR.” B arthold v Germany 18
Court ECHR
“The profitmaking purpose is considered irrelevant” Casado Coca v Spain 17
Court ECHR
“The Court ECHR noted that it does not distinguish between various forms of
expression. Consequently all expression, whatever its content, falls within the scope of
Article 10 ECHR. The key question is therefore the scrutiny of the justification for
interference under Art. 10 (2) ECHR” Munro , The Value of Commercial Speech, (2003) 3
Cambridge Law Journal , 138.
Court ECHR
“Where there has been an interference in the exercise of the rights and freedoms
guaranteed in paragraph 1 of Article 10, the supervision must be strict, because of the
importance of the rights in question; the importance of these rights has been stressed by
the Court many times. The necessity for restricting them must be convincingly
established.” Autronic AG v. Switzerland6
Court ECHR:
“In exercising its power of review, the Court assesses the proportionality of a restriction
on freedom of expression to the aim pursued. Any interference disproportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued will not be deemed “necessary in a democratic society” and will
thus contravene Article 10 of the Convention." Autronic AG v.Switzerland15
Religion is the top shelf of the supernatural supermarket ... Madog
