Facts
The complainant P. wanted to place an advertisement for animal protection on a bus of the municipal transport company Lucerne. However, the transport company rejected this, as the advertisement could be perceived as provocative and offensive. The complainant lodged a complaint with the City Council of Lucerne, which rejected the complaint. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne also rejected the complaint.
The parties involved are: P. (complainant), the City of Lucerne, the municipal transport company Lucerne, and the General Poster Company Lucerne. The decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne was reviewed by the Federal Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the rejection of the advertisement by the transport company constitutes inadmissible censorship. It came to the conclusion that the transport company was entitled to reject the advertisement, as it could be perceived as provocative and offensive.
The court emphasized that freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR) protects individuals from inadmissible censorship by the state, but does not grant a general right to disseminate one's opinion through any medium. It distinguished between the use of public ground and the use of vehicles of a public enterprise as advertising media.
The court found that the transport company does not have a monopoly on the use…