North Cyprus Tourism Centre Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Transport for London

A public authority may regulate advertising, but its policy must be interpreted consistently with fundamental rights. General enabling powers do not ordinarily authorise a complete ban on advertising a lawful commercial service in a particular territory, especially where the policy does not clearly address the basis of the restriction.

Commercial advertising by a corporate person is protected by Article 10 ECHR. A restriction must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and answer a pressing social need. The restriction must be supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and must be proportionate. Non-recognition of a foreign administration does not deprive an English company of standing to vindicate its own lawful rights.

The claimants, two English companies promoting tourism in North Cyprus, challenged Transport for London’s refusal to permit further advertising campaigns on London buses, tubes, stations and other controlled sites.

The refusal followed complaints concerning the political status of North Cyprus. TfL relied on its advertising policy, the non-recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, alleged illegality of Turkey’s occupation, Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel information, and its duties under section 404 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

The claimants alleged procedural unfairness, irrationality and infringement of Article 10 ECHR. The central issues were whether the claimants had standing, whether the reasons and legal bases for the ban were valid, and whether the restriction was lawful and proportionate.

1. Judicial review granted. The decisions were unlawful for error of law, error of fact and irrationality.
2. An unrecognised state has no standing in the English courts, and its governmental acts are not recognised. Those principles did not prevent an English company from pursuing its own legal rights. The first claimant was a separate corporate person, had contracted with TfL’s agent as principal, and was engaged in lawful commercial activity. Funding or association with the administration of North Cyprus did not invalidate its acts or deprive it of standing. The second claimant likewise had a sufficient interest.
3. TfL had confused the first claimant with the administration of North Cyprus. Non-recognition did not make the claimant’s promotion of tourism unlawful or amount to an assertion that the administration possessed internationally recognised sovereignty. The alleged Foreign Office health warning was an exaggeration and could not sustain the decision.
4. The advertising policy did not clearly authorise a complete ban on advertising North Cyprus because of the identity of the perceived promoter, the political sensitivity of the subject, or Foreign Office travel information. TfL had not demonstrated how its decision complied with the duty under section 404 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to promote equality of opportunity and good relations.
5. Commercial advertising by corporate persons was protected by Article 10 ECHR. The restriction had to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The broad policy wording had to be read subject to fundamental rights under the principle of legality. The ban was not foreseeable, no legitimate aim was identified, no pressing social need was demonstrated, and the prohibition was disproportionate.
6. The procedural process was unsatisfactory because new reasons were introduced without an opportunity for prior representations. However, later review caused no prejudice. Relief and its form were to be addressed after hearing counsel.