In the case in which the decision was issued, the defendant, acting at the time of the Holy Mass and during the homily, exhibited to the faithful congregated and to the clergy present at the church a placard with inscriptions articulating dissent with the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal which curtailed the legality of abortion procedures. In the commented decision, the Supreme Court annulled the judgments of the lower courts that had deemed Articles 195 and 196 of the Penal Code inapplicable, thereby remanding the case for further examination. The Supreme Court justices criticised the lower courts for their failure to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the malicious conduct inherent in the offence of disrupting a public service of religious worship. However, the Court ought to have construed these provisions restrictively, rather than expansively. Furthermore, the Court failed to address the defendant's exercise of freedom of expression on an issue of societal concern, namely abortion. Such expressions warrant heightened safeguarding, thereby permitting minimal scope for state intervention.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.