Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 December 2014, 15:47 GMT

Arrowsmith v. The United Kingdom

Publisher Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights
Publication Date 5 December 1978
Citation / Document Symbol 7050/75
Cite as Arrowsmith v. The United Kingdom, 7050/75, Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights, 5 December 1978, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/402902d04.html [accessed 17 December 2014]
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention");

 

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention

relating to the application lodged by Miss Pat Arrowsmith against the

United Kingdom (No. 7050/75);

 

Whereas on 5 December 1978 the Commission transmitted the said report

to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention

has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European

Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the

Convention;

 

Whereas in her application introduced on 2 June 1975, the applicant

complained that her conviction and sentence under Sections 1 and 2 of

the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934 interfered with her right to

liberty contrary to Article 5 (art. 5) of the Convention, her right to

manifest her pacifist beliefs contrary to Article 9 (art. 9), her

right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 (art. 10), and

that the 1934 Act discriminated against persons holding pacifist

opinions, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 9

and 10 (art. 14+9, art. 14+10) of the Convention;

 

Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application

admissible on 16 May 1977, expressed in its report, adopted on 12

October 1978, unanimously the opinion that Articles 5 and 9 (art. 5,

art. 9) of the Convention had not been violated, by 11 votes to 1 that

the restriction imposed on the applicant's right to freedom of

expression was justified under Article 10, paragraph 2 (art. 10-2), of

the Convention and by 11 votes with 1 abstention that the case did not

disclose a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with either Article 9

or 10 (art. 14+9, art. 14+10) of the Convention;

 

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;

 

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention,

 

Decides that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

Search Refworld