| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Oxford Journal of Law & Religion; Jun2018, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p349-351, 3p |
| Abstrakt: |
Human rights – Freedom of expression – Interference with – Applicant clothing company making references to religious figures in advertisements – State Consumer Rights Protection Authority ('SCRPA') receiving complaints about advertisements – SCRPA seeking opinion of Lithuanian Advertising Agency ('LAA') – LAA stating that advertisements breaching Code of Advertising Ethics – SCRPA forwarding opinion and complaints to State Inspectorate of Non-Food Products – Inspectorate finding that advertisements might be in violation of national Law on Advertising – Applicant company submitting to SCRPA that references to 'Jesus' and 'Mary' intended as emotional interjections common in spoken Lithuanian – Also arguing that in absence of a State religion, the interests of one group, namely practising Catholics, could not be equated to those of society as a whole – SCRPA finding that advertisements contrary to public morals and in violation of the Law on Advertising – Applicant companys' complaints to regional administrative court and Supreme Administrative Court dismissed – Supreme Administrative Court finding that inappropriate use of symbols of a religious nature contrary to universally accepted moral and ethical norms – President of Supreme Administrative Court's application to re-examine the case on the basis that there may have been an unlawful or disproportionate restriction on applicant company's freedom of expression refused – Whether ban infringement of freedom of expression – Whether necessary and proportionate interference with freedom of expression for the protection of morals and the rights of others – Whether contracting state exceeding margin of appreciation – European Convention on Human Rights, art 10 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
