1.

A legitimate aim is pursued

Ambiguity surrounds the meaning and the scope of the notion of public interest mainly due to the fact
that there are many different theories about its exact concept.20 A contributing factor for the vagueness
of the concept is also the false impression that the public interest is the interest of the majority

Case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, Judgment of 20 September 1994, Application no. 13470/87,

ECtHR, para. 52

2. The act is suitable to achieve this aim

It is not required that the means which is eventually chosen must be the only one suitable for realizing
the limiting law’s purpose. It is sufficient if the chosen means is itself capable.

For instance, there was a law in South Africa which prohibited the same-sex couples to enjoy the same
exactly benefits as were enjoyed by married, heterosexual couples. The Constitutional Court examined
the statute23 and it held that, despite the fact that the purpose pursued was consonant with the
principles of South African society (it was supported that in this way the traditional family structure was
preserved),24 there was no rational connection between that goal and the means of rejecting same
benefits.

Case =National Coalition for LGBT Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT10/99),
2000 (2) SA 1, 2 December 1999.

3.Necessity

Nachova and others v. Bulgaria case, where the Court found that “recourse to potentially deadly force
cannot be considered as ‘absolutely necessary’ where it is known that the person to be arrested poses
no threat to life or limb and is not suspected of having committed a violent offence

Application of the proportionality doctrine in the case law of the ECtHR

 Hatton and others v. the United Kingdom case , where the private and family life of the
applicants under Article 8 of the ECHR32 had to be balanced against the economic welfare of
the community
 Handyside v. the United Kingdom. In the background of that case, the applicant, who was
the owner of a publishing company, had published the book ‘The Little Red Schoolbook’ and
distributed it in many countries. Among other readers, the book was also made available to
school-children older than twelve years old. However, its content and specifically its
reference, inter alia, to the interconnectedness of sex and pornography was deemed
inappropriate and obscene since, as the domestic courts held, it “produced a tendency to
deprave and corrupt” its target audience, namely children. So, the applicant resorted to the
Court claiming that the actions taken against him by the United Kingdom (i.e. imposition of a
fine and forfeiture order) violated mostly his right to freedom of expression under Art. 10 of
 the ECHR in conjunction with his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
protected in Art. 9.
 Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria =concerned issues of blasphemous speech.