## Facts

- The applicant was a company marketing and selling health food products in the United Kingdom.
- The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a UK self-regulatory body, upheld complaints regarding the applicant’s advertisements, determining that the claims about the products’ health benefits were misleading.
- The applicant contended that the ASA’s decisions and the system of self-regulation infringed its right to freedom of expression as protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the ASA’s restrictions on the applicant’s advertising amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR.
2. Whether the system of self-regulation and decision-making procedures provided sufficient safeguards against arbitrary or disproportionate interference with commercial speech.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights determined that the applicant’s advertisements fell within the scope of Article 10, but commercial speech may be subject to greater regulation than other forms of expression.
- The Court found that the restrictions imposed served the legitimate aim of protecting consumers from misrepresentation and maintaining fair competition.
- The ECtHR found the interference with Article 10 rights to be proportionate, considering the nature of the misleading advertisements and the ASA’s independent review procedures.
- The UK's self-regulatory advertising system was held to fall within the state's margin of appreciation and offered adequate procedural safeguards.
- The Court rejected the applicant’s claim of a violation of Article 10.

## Legal Principles

- Article 10 ECHR protects freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information and ideas, but is subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.
- Commercial speech, while covered by Article 10, can be more strictly regulated to protect consumers and preserve market integrity.
- The doctrine of margin of appreciation recognizes that states are better placed to assess and regulate national commercial activities, provided such regulation is reasonable and subject to procedural safeguards.
- Restrictions on advertising must pursue a legitimate aim, be clearly prescribed by law, and be necessary and proportionate.

## Conclusion

The ECtHR held that the UK's regulatory regime on advertising claims struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and consumer protection, confirming that proportionate and procedurally fair regulation of commercial speech is permissible under Article 10 ECHR.

Stretch v United Kingdom (2004) 38 EHRR 12 (ECtHR)