issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 050 (2012)  
09.02.2012  
Criminal conviction for distributing leaflets offensive to  
homosexuals was not contrary to freedom of expression  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden  
(application no. 1813/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,  
unanimously, that there had been:  
No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on  
Human Rights  
The case concerned the applicants’ conviction in 2005 for distributing in an upper  
secondary school approximately 100 leaflets considered by the courts to be offensive to  
homosexuals.  
Principal facts  
The applicants, Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, Mattias Harlin, Björn Täng and Niklas Lundström,  
are Swedish nationals who were born in 1978, 1981, 1987 and 1986 respectively.  
Mr Vejdeland lives in Gothenburg and the other applicants live in Sundsvall (Sweden).  
In December 2004 the applicants, together with three other persons, went to an upper  
secondary school and distributed approximately a hundred leaflets by an organisation  
called National Youth, by leaving them in or on the pupils’ lockers. The school’s principal  
intervened and made them leave the premises. The statements in the leaflets were, in  
particular, allegations that homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a  
morally destructive effect on the substance of society” and was responsible for the  
development of HIV and AIDS.  
The applicants claimed that they had not intended to express contempt for homosexuals  
as a group and stated that the purpose of their activity had been to start a debate about  
the lack of objectivity in the education in Swedish schools. The District Court found that  
the applicants’ intention had been to express contempt for homosexuals and convicted  
them of agitation against a national or ethnic group. The charges against the applicants  
were rejected on appeal, on the ground that a conviction would amount to a violation of  
their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the European Convention on  
Human Rights.  
On 6 July 2006 the Supreme Court convicted the applicants of agitation against a  
national or ethnic group. The majority of judges found in particular that the pupils had  
not had the possibility to refuse the leaflets and that the purpose of supplying the pupils  
with arguments for a debate could have been achieved without offensive statements to  
homosexuals as a group. The first three applicants were given suspended sentences  
combined with fines ranging from approximately 200 to 2,000 euros and the fourth  
applicant was sentenced to probation.  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
The applicants alleged that the Supreme Court convicting them of agitation against a  
national or ethnic group had constituted a violation of their freedom of expression under  
Article 10 of the Convention. They further submitted that they had been punished  
without law in violation of Article 7.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 January  
2007.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,  
Elisabet Fura (Sweden),  
Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic),  
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),  
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),  
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),  
Angelika Nußberger (Germany), Judges,  
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.  
INTERIGHTS (the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights) and the  
International Commission of Jurists submitted observations in their capacity as third-  
party interveners in the proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention). The observations  
are set out in the judgment (§§ 41-46).  
Decision of the Court  
Article 10  
The applicants were convicted of agitation against a national or ethnic group in  
accordance with the Swedish Penal Code. The Court therefore considered that the  
interference with their freedom of expression had been sufficiently clear and foreseeable  
and thus “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the Convention. The interference had  
served a legitimate aim, namely “the protection of the reputation and rights of others”  
(Article 10 § 2).  
The Court agreed with the Supreme Court that, even if the applicants’ objective to start  
a debate about the lack of objectivity of education in Swedish schools had been an  
acceptable aim, regard had to be paid to the wording of the leaflets. According to the  
leaflets, homosexuality was a “deviant sexual proclivity”, had “a morally destructive  
effect” on society and was responsible for the development of HIV and AIDS. The leaflets  
further alleged that the “homosexual lobby” tried to play down paedophilia. These  
statements had constituted serious and prejudicial allegations, even if they had not been  
a direct call to hateful acts. The Court stressed that discrimination based on sexual  
orientation was as serious as discrimination based on “race, origin or colour”.  
While acknowledging the applicants’ right to express their ideas, the Supreme Court had  
found that the leaflets’ statements had been unnecessarily offensive. It had further  
emphasised that the applicants had imposed the leaflets on the pupils by leaving them  
on or in their lockers. The Court noted that the pupils had been at an impressionable and  
sensitive age and that the distribution of the leaflets had taken place at a school which  
none of the applicants attended and to which they did not have free access.  
2
Three of the applicants were given suspended sentences combined with fines ranging  
from approximately EUR 200 to EUR 2,000, and the fourth applicant was sentenced to  
probation. The Court did not find these penalties excessive in the circumstances as the  
crime of which they had been convicted had carried a penalty of up to two years’  
imprisonment.  
The Court therefore considered that the interference with the applicants’ exercise of their  
right to freedom of expression had reasonably been regarded by the Swedish authorities  
as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of  
others. The Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10.  
Article 7  
Having regard to the finding under Article 10 that the measure complained of was  
“prescribed by law” within the meaning of the Convention, the Court declared the  
applicants’ complaint under Article 7 inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.  
Separate Opinions  
Concurring opinions were expressed by: Judge Spielmann joined by Judge Nußberger;  
Judge Zupančič; and Judge Yudkivska joined by Judge Villiger. These opinions are  
annexed to the judgment.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
On the occasion of the judgment’s delivery in the case of Vejdeland and Others v.  
Sweden, a Factsheet on “Hate Speech” was released on the Court’s website.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3