
European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta
- Author
- Dirk Voorhoof (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- On 15 May 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment regarding a peculiar application of the Maltese Cinema and Stage Regulations. A theatre group, Unifaun Theatre Productions, had been prevented from producing and performing the play “Stitching”, due to a ban imposed by the Board for Film and Stage Classification (the Board). This interference with the theatre group’s right to freedom of expression was subsequently confirmed by the domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court of Malta. According to the Constitutional Court, the play contained several scenes that affected the morality and decency of the entire production, and it was within the Board’s competence to assess that in line with the Cinema and Stage Regulations. The Constitutional Court referred to phrases which constituted disparaging and insolent remarks towards more than one belief, towards women and towards the suffering of the Jews in the Second World War. In the Court’s view, the limits of decency had been breached due to the blasphemy which was an offence under Maltese law and to the vilification of the dignity of a people, of a woman, of children, and of the human being, as well as the extreme glorification of sexual perversion. In upholding the legitimate and justified character of the interference with the theatre group’s freedom of expression, the Constitutional Court inter alia referred to the case law of the ECtHR in Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (IRIS 1995-1/1). The ECtHR however finds that the Maltese law was not of a sufficient quality and that the interference was a result of a procedure which was not prescribed by law. As the interference was not lawful within the meaning of the ECHR, the ECtHR deemed it is not necessary to further determine whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. Unanimously the ECtHR concludes that there has been a violation of Article 10 ECHR.
- Keywords
- Freedom of expression, theater, cinema, morals, quality of law, censorship
Downloads
-
IRIS 2018.7.3.Unifaun Theatre.Voorhoof.pdf
- full text
- |
- open access
- |
- |
- 489.10 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8571014
- MLA
- Voorhoof, Dirk. “European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta.” IRIS (ENGLISH ED. ONLINE), no. 7, European Audiovisual Observatory, 2018, pp. 4–4.
- APA
- Voorhoof, D. (2018). European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta. IRIS (ENGLISH ED. ONLINE), (7), 4–4.
- Chicago author-date
- Voorhoof, Dirk. 2018. “European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta.” IRIS (ENGLISH ED. ONLINE), no. 7: 4–4.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Voorhoof, Dirk. 2018. “European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta.” IRIS (ENGLISH ED. ONLINE) (7): 4–4.
- Vancouver
- 1.Voorhoof D. European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta. IRIS (ENGLISH ED ONLINE). 2018;(7):4–4.
- IEEE
- [1]D. Voorhoof, “European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta,” IRIS (ENGLISH ED. ONLINE), no. 7, pp. 4–4, 2018.
@article{8571014, abstract = {{On 15 May 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment regarding a peculiar application of the Maltese Cinema and Stage Regulations. A theatre group, Unifaun Theatre Productions, had been prevented from producing and performing the play “Stitching”, due to a ban imposed by the Board for Film and Stage Classification (the Board). This interference with the theatre group’s right to freedom of expression was subsequently confirmed by the domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court of Malta. According to the Constitutional Court, the play contained several scenes that affected the morality and decency of the entire production, and it was within the Board’s competence to assess that in line with the Cinema and Stage Regulations. The Constitutional Court referred to phrases which constituted disparaging and insolent remarks towards more than one belief, towards women and towards the suffering of the Jews in the Second World War. In the Court’s view, the limits of decency had been breached due to the blasphemy which was an offence under Maltese law and to the vilification of the dignity of a people, of a woman, of children, and of the human being, as well as the extreme glorification of sexual perversion. In upholding the legitimate and justified character of the interference with the theatre group’s freedom of expression, the Constitutional Court inter alia referred to the case law of the ECtHR in Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (IRIS 1995-1/1). The ECtHR however finds that the Maltese law was not of a sufficient quality and that the interference was a result of a procedure which was not prescribed by law. As the interference was not lawful within the meaning of the ECHR, the ECtHR deemed it is not necessary to further determine whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. Unanimously the ECtHR concludes that there has been a violation of Article 10 ECHR.}}, author = {{Voorhoof, Dirk}}, issn = {{1023-8565}}, journal = {{IRIS (ENGLISH ED. ONLINE)}}, keywords = {{Freedom of expression,theater,cinema,morals,quality of law,censorship}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{7}}, pages = {{4--4}}, publisher = {{European Audiovisual Observatory}}, title = {{European Court of Human Rights : Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta}}, year = {{2018}}, }