NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

cancer”. 1094 The court found that the photomontage concerned did not constitute pro tobacco propaganda or advertising, but sentenced the publication director to a EUR 20,000fine for direct advertising in favour of tobaccoproducts because of the photographs published. The publishing company was declared jointly and severally liable. Relying on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10, the applicants challenged provisions of the Public Health Code, which authorised the audio-visual media to broadcast motor-sports competitions in France without concealing the cigarette brands displayed on the cars, drivers’ suits or tracks. The Court observed that the audio-visual media and the print media were not in similar or comparable situations, as for the former it was not yet feasible, by technical means, to hide lettering, logos or advertisements on footage used by broadcasters. On the other side, for the latter, it was possible to refrain from taking photographs of such symbols, or to conceal or blur them, on the pages of magazines. The print media had the necessary time and technical facilities to modify their pictures and veil any logos of tobacco products. In addition, the French Court of Cassation confirmed that the live broadcasting of a race was the only exception to the ban on the indirect advertising of tobacco products. Consequently, Article 14 was not breached. 1095 Similarly, in the case of Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile andDupuy v. France , 1096 the applicant company was fined for indirect or unlawful advertising of tobacco products. It ruled the magazine Action Auto Moto, which published a photograph of Formula 1 racing driver Michael Schumacher celebrating his victory on the podium of the Australian Grand Prix. The Picture contained the name of the cigarette brand, which sponsors his racing team, on his sleeve. Moreover, another brad of cigarettes was visible on the right sleeve of another driver’s suit. The Court came to the same conclusion as in the previous case, finding no infringement of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention in respect of this Article 34 NGO. We may conclude that discrimination in respect of freedom of expression is a very difficult issue to prove. It was again no violation in the case of Özgür Gündem v. Turkey. 1097 The Court has never ruled that there was a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in this combination even in respect of natural persons. 1098 The next combination we will scrutinise Article 14 taken together with Article 11 of the Convention.

1094 Ibid. , § 17. 1095 VOORHOOF, D. Freedom of Expression under the European Human Rights System . From Sunday Times (N° 1) v. U.K. (1979) to Hachette Filipacchi Associés (“Ici Paris”) v. France (2009). URL: accessed 1 March 2015. 1096 Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile and Dupuy , cited above, § 66.

1097 Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no. 23144/93, ECHR 2000-III. 1098 The data based on a search in HUDOC on 21June 2015.

206