26 MURPHY v. IRELAND JUDGMENT amounted only to an announcement of the fact that a religious publication is for sale or that a religious event will take place) has been clearly chosen for its relatively objective and, consequently, uncontroversial nature. 81. Finally, and as to the parties' submissions concerning the existence of similar prohibitions on the broadcasting of religious advertising in other countries, the Court observes that there appears to be no clear consensus between the Contracting States as to the manner in which to legislate for the broadcasting of religious advertisements. Certain States have similar prohibitions (for example, Greece, Switzerland and Portugal), certain prohibit religious advertisements considered offensive (for example, Spain and see also Council Directive 89/552/EEC) and certain have no legislative restriction (the Netherlands). There appears to be no “uniform conception of the requirements of the protection of the rights of others” in the context of the legislative regulation of the broadcasting of religious advertising (see paragraph 67 above). 82. In the circumstances, and given the margin of appreciation accorded to the State in such matters, the Court considers that the State has demonstrated that there were “relevant and sufficient” reasons justifying the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. In consequence, it concludes that there has been no violation of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY Holds that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, under which Article the Court found the complaint was most appropriately considered. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Vincent BERGER Registrar Georg RESS President