Editing McLibel case (section)

====European Court of Human Rights====
[[File:Anti-McDonalds protest Leicester Square London 20041016.jpg|thumb|right|An anti-McDonald's leafleting campaign in front of the McDonald's restaurant in [[Leicester Square]], London, during the [[European Social Forum]] season, 16 October 2004]]
On 15 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled<ref name="echr">{{cite web|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-68224|title=HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights|website=hudoc.echr.coe.int}}</ref> that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] and ordered that the UK government pay Steel and Morris £57,000 in compensation. In their ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which violates Article 10); they also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were complex and oppressive UK libel laws.

In particular the Court held:
{{quote|in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment.|ECHR judgment, para. 89<ref name="echr"/>}}
{{quote|The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism&nbsp;..., and the same principle must apply to others who engage in public debate.|ECHR judgment, para. 90<ref name="echr"/>}}
{{quote|It is true that large public companies inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts and, as in the case of the businessmen and women who manage them, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies.|ECHR judgment, para. 94<ref name="echr"/>}}

In response to the European Court of Human Rights' decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release:

<blockquote>Having largely beaten McDonald's&nbsp;... we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair UK laws. As a result of the&nbsp;... ruling today, the government may be forced to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws. We hope that this will result in greater public scrutiny and criticism of powerful organisations whose practices have a detrimental effect on society and the environment. The McLibel campaign has already proved that determined and widespread grass roots protests and defiance can undermine those who try to silence their critics, and also render oppressive laws unworkable. The continually growing opposition to McDonald's and all it stands for is a vindication of all the efforts of those around the world who have been exposing and challenging the corporation's business practices.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/releases/msc150205.html
| title = Victory for McLibel 2 against UK Government | publisher = McSpotlight
| date = 15 February 2005 | access-date = 14 July 2006 }}</ref> </blockquote>