TV Vest, a television broadcasting company (1st applicant), And Rogaland Pensjonistparti, a political party (2nd applicant), brought an application against Norway under article 34 of the convention claiming a violation of article 10 (freedom of expression).

TV Vest agreed to broadcast Rogaland Pensjonistparti’s political advertisement. There was a statutory prohibition in Norway of broadcasting political advertisement. Aware of the statutory prohibition TV Vest broadcasted the political advertisement, arguing it was entitled to do so by the protection provided by article 10 of the Convention. The Media Authority decided to impose a fine on TV Vest, for violation of the prohibition on political advertising applied to television broadcasts.

TV Vest appealed unsuccessfully against the decision to Oslo City Court. TV Vest did not dispute that the content was political advertising and thus fell foul of the above-mentioned prohibition in the Broadcasting Act but submitted that this provision was incompatible with the right to freedom of expression in Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution and Article 10 of the Convention. TV Vest appealed against the City Court’s judgment to the Supreme Court, challenging its application of the law. The Supreme Court, by four votes to one, upheld the Media Authority’s decision.

At ECHR level, the applicants complained that the fine imposed by the Media Authority constituted a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The parties shared the view that the impugned measure amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by paragraph 1 of the above provision. They further agreed that the measure was prescribed by law, namely sections 3-1(3) and 10-3 of the Broadcasting Act in Norway, and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting “the rights of others” in the sense of paragraph 2 of this Article. The Court saw no reason to hold otherwise. The parties were in disagreement as to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of article 10 of the Convention. Its reasoning was that there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim pursued by the prohibition on political advertising and the means deployed to achieve that aim. The restriction which the prohibition and the imposition of the fine entailed on the applicants’ exercise of their freedom of expression could not therefore be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 10 for the protection the rights of others, notwithstanding the margin of appreciation available to the national authorities.