## Facts

- Nigel Wingrove, a British film director, produced a short film (*Visions of Ecstasy*) depicting St. Teresa of Ávila in sexually explicit scenes involving the crucified Christ.
- Under UK law, lawful public distribution of a video work required a classification certificate from the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
- The BBFC refused a certificate on the basis that the film would likely be regarded as blasphemous under English common-law blasphemous libel.
- The domestic blasphemy offence (as applied) targeted scurrilous, abusive, or insulting publications about God, Christ, the Bible, or Church of England formularies that tended to vilify Christianity and outrage believers’ feelings.
- Wingrove offered cuts but did not obtain a certificate; the refusal operated as a prior restraint because distribution without a certificate was effectively impossible.
- Wingrove complained to the European Commission of Human Rights, alleging a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression); the Commission found the interference unjustified and referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
- The ECtHR viewed the film before deciding the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the BBFC’s refusal to classify the film interfered with freedom of expression under Article 10.
2. If so, whether the interference was “prescribed by law” given the common-law character and alleged vagueness of blasphemy.
3. Whether the refusal pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10(2), including protection of “the rights of others.”
4. Whether the restriction was “necessary in a democratic society,” including whether a total ban was proportionate and within the State’s margin of appreciation.

## Decision

- The Court held there was an interference with Article 10 because the refusal prevented lawful distribution.
- By majority, the Court found no violation of Article 10.
- The interference was “prescribed by law” because the offence, as developed in domestic case law and practice and applied with legal guidance, was sufficiently foreseeable and constrained.
- The interference pursued a legitimate aim: protecting the rights of others, including the religious feelings of Christians and protection against seriously offensive attacks on central Christian symbols.
- The Court held the measure could be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society,” granting the UK a wide margin of appreciation in matters involving religion, morals, and potential public disturbance.
- Despite the severity of a total ban on distribution, the Court found it proportionate in light of the film’s explicit sexual portrayal of Christ and the reasons relied upon by domestic authorities.

## Legal Principles

- A distribution ban imposed through a film classification regime can constitute an interference with freedom of expression under Article 10.
- An interference is “prescribed by law” when domestic law, including common law, provides sufficiently clear criteria and practical safeguards to make the consequences reasonably foreseeable and to limit arbitrariness.
- Protecting believers from seriously insulting attacks on objects of religious veneration may qualify as protecting “the rights of others” under Article 10(2).
- In the absence of sufficient common European ground on regulating blasphemous expression, States may receive a wide margin of appreciation when balancing expression against protection of religious feelings and social peace.
- Even artistic expression may be restricted where authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons and the restriction remains proportionate to the legitimate aim.

## Conclusion

The ECtHR upheld the UK’s refusal to classify and permit distribution of *Visions of Ecstasy*, concluding that the blasphemy-based restriction on expression was sufficiently grounded in law, aimed at protecting the rights of others, and proportionate within the State’s wide discretion in sensitive religious and moral matters.


Wingrove v. United Kingdom, App. No. 17419/90, 1996-V Eur. Ct. H.R. (1996)