The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the McLibel case was in breach of the right to a fair trial and right to freedom of expression.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the time of settlement:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to the first applicant and EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 47,311.17 (forty-seven thousand, three hundred and eleven euros and seventeen cents) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
European Court of Human Rights full decision
Selections from the looong ruling:
The Court has long held that “political expressionâ€, including expression on matters of public interest and concern, requires a high level of protection under Article 10
The Government have pointed out that the applicants were not journalists, and should not therefore attract the high level of protection afforded to the press under Article 10. The Court considers, however, that in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment.
The original “libelous” What’s Wrong with McDonald’s? leaflet.
The current What’s Wrong with McDonald’s? leaflet.
What does this mean for Indymedia?
Recently, UK Indymedia was threatened by weapons manufacturer (aka warmongers/baby killers) EDO. EDO’s lawyers claimed content on UK indymedia was libelous: We refer in particular to the statements that our client “war-mongers”, is “complicit in the deaths of innocent people” and makes “things to kill children”…
If EDO actually pursues this case, they may just do a McLibel and wind up looking far worse in the end (e.g. “so how many children have your weapons actually killed?” kind of questions). Now that the ECHR has ruled against the UK Government, it makes EDO’s case even worse…