Quick answer
In The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1) (Plenary Court, 26 April 1979, application no. 6538/74), the European Court of Human Rights held — by eleven votes to nine — that an injunction restraining the newspaper from publishing an article about the thalidomide litigation, on the ground that it would constitute contempt of court, breached Article 10. It is a landmark on prior restraint, on the meaning of “prescribed by law”, and on the strong public interest in reporting matters of grave social concern.
Background and facts
In the 1960s the drug thalidomide, taken by pregnant women, had caused many children to be born with serious disabilities. Litigation between the affected families and the manufacturer was continuing, and negotiations over compensation had dragged on for years. The Sunday Times prepared an article examining the disaster and the conduct of the settlement. The Attorney General obtained an injunction preventing publication on the basis that it would prejudice pending proceedings and amount to contempt of court. The House of Lords upheld the injunction. The newspaper complained that this restriction breached its freedom of expression.
The complaint
The applicant complained under Article 10 that the injunction was an unjustified interference with freedom of expression, and also raised complaints under Articles 14 and 18.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court first addressed whether the interference was “prescribed by law”. It held that a norm cannot be regarded as “law” unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of a given action. The relevant contempt principle met that standard, so the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary.
The decisive issue was whether the injunction was “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court emphasised that this requires a pressing social need and that any restriction be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, with the Court exercising European supervision over the national authorities’ margin of appreciation. The thalidomide disaster was a matter of undisputed public concern; the families and the public had a vital interest in the facts and in the various possible solutions. The proposed article was moderate in tone and presented the facts and arguments. Weighing the public interest in the free flow of information against the interest in the proper administration of justice, the Court found that the interference did not correspond to a social need sufficiently pressing to outweigh the public interest in freedom of expression. There had accordingly been a breach of Article 10.
The judgment
- by eleven votes to nine, a breach of Article 10;
- unanimously, no breach of Article 14 taken with Article 10, and no need to examine Article 18.
Legacy and subsequent case law
The judgment prompted reform of the English law of contempt of court and remains a foundational authority on the “prescribed by law” requirement (the qualities of accessibility and foreseeability) and on the special weight attaching to speech on matters of serious public interest. It sits alongside Handyside as a pillar of the Court’s Article 10 case law, and its scrutiny of prior restraint was developed further in later cases such as Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom.
What this means for applicants
- Speech on matters of grave public concern receives strong protection under Article 10.
- Prior restraints are scrutinised especially closely and require a pressing social need.
- A restriction must be “prescribed by law” — accessible and foreseeable in its effects.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did The Sunday Times v. UK decide?
The Court held, by eleven votes to nine, that an injunction preventing the newspaper from publishing an article about the thalidomide litigation breached Article 10, because the restriction did not correspond to a pressing social need outweighing the public interest in the information.
What is the “prescribed by law” requirement?
A restriction on a Convention right must have a basis in law that is accessible and formulated precisely enough for a person to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences of their conduct.
Why is the case important for press freedom?
It established that speech on matters of serious public concern attracts strong protection, and that prior restraints on publication require particularly compelling justification.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Otegi Mondragon v. Spain
- Delfi AS v. Estonia
- Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary
- Perinçek v. Switzerland
- Von Hannover v. Germany
- Handyside v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.