EIT: Vangitsemiset alasti kulkemisen johdosta eivät olleet kohtuutonta puuttumista sananvapauteen29.10.2014 | Oikeusuutiset
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on Yhdistynyttä kuningaskuntaa vastaan antamassaan tuomiossa katsonut, että nudismin puolestapuhujan ja sitä aktiivisesti harjoittaneen henkilön pidättäminen ja vangitseminen useasti, yhteen laskettuna yli seitsemän vuoden ajaksi ”rauhan rikkomiseesta” (breach of the peace), ei tapauksessa vallinneissa olosuhteissa ollut ollut kohtuutonta.
In a Chamber judgment in the case of Gough v. the United Kingdom (application no. 49327/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and
no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).
The case concerned in particular Mr Gough’s complaint about his repeated arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment in Scotland for breach of the peace because of his nudity in public places.
The Court found that Mr Gough’s nudity in public was a form of expression of his opinion on the inoffensive nature of the human body. It accepted that the cumulative impact of the numerous sentences of imprisonment served in Scotland – which amounted to over seven years – was severe. However, the Court emphasised Mr Gough’s own responsibility for his convictions and the sentences imposed because of his wilful refusal to obey the law over a number of years. It also referred to his duty to show tolerance and sensibility to the views of members of the public, who were likely to be alarmed and offended by his nakedness. It pointed out that there were other avenues open to Mr Gough to express his views on nudity. It concluded that Mr Gough’s lengthy imprisonment had been the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law, in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which went against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society. Having regard to the discretion allowed to the national authorities in this area, the Court found no violation of Article 10. The Court also found that, even if Mr Gough’s conduct fell within the scope of protection of “private life” under Article 8, the measures taken against him were justified for the reasons given in respect of Article 10.
Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: Press release