Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland (no. 16354/06) — Grand Chamber Judgment 13 July 2012 [no violation of Article 10]. The applicant association is a Swiss non-profit-making association, the national branch of the Raëlian Movement, an organization based in Geneva and founded in 1976 with the stated aim of making initial contact and developing good relations with extraterrestrials. In 2001 it asked the Neuchâtel police headquarters for permission to carry out a poster campaign. Permission was refused, in particular on the grounds that the campaign would be contrary to public order and public policy; the Raëlian Movement had already been the subject of criminal complaints about certain sexual practices involving minors, and it also promoted cloning and eugenics and advocated a political system based on problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for governing. Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant association complained about the refusal.
In a chamber judgment of 13 January 2011, the Court, noted that this was the first time it had examined whether the domestic authorities should allow an association to impart its ideas through a poster campaign using public space made available to it. The Court further noted that though the posters themselves did not contain offensive material, they referred to the association's website, which make easily available to anyone, including children, offensive material and opinions: for example cloning services offered by the Clonaid company, the possible existence of sexually deviant practices involving under-age children and the threats to public order, safety, and morals posed by "geniocracy" and the criticism of contemporary democracies. The Court held, therefore, that the Swiss government was within the margin of appreciation afforded it by the European Convention with regard to public space and had given sufficient reasons for its actions. There is, therefore, no violation of Article 10 in this matter and no necessity to undertake a separate consideration of Article 9.
On 13 July 2012 the Grand Chamber returned a judgment in which it found no violation of Article 10. The action of the Swiss government had met a "pressing social need" and the authorities had not overstepped the broad margin of appreciation given to them in view of the non-political dimension of the poster campaign. The restriction was, moreover, limited to the display of posters on public facilities, allowing the association to use other means of expression.
Herrmann v. Germany (no. 9300/07) — Grand Chamber Judgment 26 June 2012 [violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1]. {Webcast of the Hearing} The applicant, Günter Herrmann, is a German national who was born in 1955 and lives in Stutensee (Germany). As the owner of two landholdings in Rhineland-Palatinate which are smaller than 75 hectares, he is automatically a member of the Langsur hunting association under German Federal Hunting Law (Bundesjagdgesetz). He complains about being obliged to tolerate the hunt on his premises even though he is opposed to hunting on moral grounds. He relies on Articles 9 (freedom of thought conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In a judgment of 20 January 2011, the Court held by six votes to one that there has been no violation of Article 9 in this case.
In its decision of 26 June 2012, the Grand Chamber saw no reason to depart from its findings in previous judgments and found that the obligation of landowners to tolerate hunting on their property 'imposes a disproportionate burden' upon those who, like Mr Herrmann, are opposed to hunting for ethical reasons, and that therefore there was in the case a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further held that it it did not have jurisdiction to examine the complaints under Articles 8 and 11, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, and that it was not necessary separately to examine the complaints under Articles 14 and Article 9. The Court awarded no pecuniary damages, but accessed non-pecuniary damages and costs.