NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

The Court has also dealt with this combination of Articles 14 and 9 in a number of other cases. It did not find a violation in the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. the United Kingdom , 1087 concerning the refusal of full exemption from taxes in respect of a Mormon temple that was not open to the general public. The Court reached the same conclusion in its judgment in Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France . 1088 The applicant in this case invoked Article 14 of the Convention, claiming that it was the victim of discrimination contrary to that Article. In particular, it stated that the approval it sought, which is needed to obtain access to slaughterhouses, was granted only to the Paris Central Consistory, the association which represents the vast majority of Jews in France, whose ritual slaughterers, in the applicant’s submission, do not carry out a sufficiently thorough examination of the meat which they certify as kosher. Let us have a look at the combination of Articles 14 and 10 of the Convention. 2.9.4 Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention When it comes to violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention, in most of the cases, the Court usually limits its observations to the conclusion that, having regard for its findings under Article 10 taken alone, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine a the complaint under Article 14. 1089 An example of this is found in the case of News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria . 1090 Similar situations occur when Article 34 NGOs complain of violations of other provisions of the Convention together with Articles 10 and 14. 1091 In a number of cases, the Court came to the conclusion that there had been no breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention. 1092 Two cases against France concerned convictions of magazines for illegal advertising of tobacco. In the case of Société de conception de presse et d’édition and Ponson v. France , 1093 the applicants were a company owning the magazine Entrevue and its editor, Mr Gérard Ponson. The magazine published an article on money in sports, where there was a photo of Michael Schumacher with the logo of a brand of cigarettes. Another photo showed Michael Schumacher’s helmet in the cigarette brand’s colour. Furthermore, the penultimate page of the magazine showed a series of satirical photomontages, one of which featured two packets of the brand cigarettes cut out to represent two human figures engaged in the act of sodomy, with the caption “Beware: smoking causes anal 1089 Informationsverein Lentia , cited above, § 44 ; Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 1) , nos. 64178/00, 64179/00, 64181/00, 64183/00 and 64184/00, § 86, 30 March 2006 and Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria , no. 35841/02, § 77, 7 December 2006. 1090 News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG , cited above, § 62. 1091 For example, Article 11 in the case of Wilson, National Union of Journalists , cited above, § 52. 1092 Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile and Dupuy v. France , no. 13353/05, § 66, 5 March 2009; Société de conception de presse et d’édition and Ponson v. France , no. 26935/05, § 81, 5 March 2009 and The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) , 26 April 1979, § 73, Series a no. 30. 1093 Société de conception de presse et d’édition , cited above, § 5. 1087 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, cited above. 1088 Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek [GC], cited above.

205