Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 22714/93

Alfred Worm

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 23 May 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

C. The present Report

(paras. 12-16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 17-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 17-30). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

B. Relevant domestic law

(para. 31). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 32-45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

B. Point at issue

(para. 33). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

C. Article 10 of the Convention

(paras. 34-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

CONCLUSION

(para. 45). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. E. BUSUTTIL, A. WEITZEL,

J.-C. SOYER, H.G. SCHERMERS, F. MARTINEZ,

MRS. J. LIDDY, MM. L LOUCAIDES, I. CABRAL BARRETO,

N. BRATZA, G. RESS, K. HERNDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . 12

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1945 and resident

in Vienna. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. W. Masser,

a lawyer practising in Vienna.

3. The application is directed against Austria. The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, Head

of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign

Affairs.

4. The case concerns the applicant's complaint about his conviction

under the Austrian Media Act for having exercised prohibited influence

on criminal proceedings. The applicant invokes Article 10 of the

Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 28 July 1993 and registered on

30 September 1993.

6. On 17 January 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,

pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give

notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite

the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and

merits.

7. The Government's observations were submitted on 2 May 1995. The

applicant replied on 23 June 1995.

8. On 18 October 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to

refer the case to the Plenary Commission.

9. On 27 November 1995 the Commission declared the application

admissible.

10. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 11 December 1995 and they were invited to submit such

further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The

parties did not submit further observations.

11. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C. The present Report

12. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

13. The text of this Report was adopted on 23 May 1996 by the

Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

14. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under

the Convention.

15. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application

is annexed hereto.

16. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

17. The applicant, who is a journalist by profession, was working for

"Profil", an Austrian periodical dealing mostly with politics. He

investigated and reported on the case of Mr. Androsch, a former

Minister of Finance, who was involved in the following sets of criminal

proceedings.

18. In 1989 Mr. Androsch was convicted by the Vienna Court of Appeal

(Oberlandesgericht) of having made false statements as a witness in two

incidents. The Court found that he had, before a parliamentary

investigation committee (Untersuchungsausschuß), inter alia wrongly

stated that certain amounts of money on an account belonging to him,

had been put at his disposal by a Mr. S., whereas they had actually

been transferred from anonymous accounts, belonging to him and his

wife. Further, he had, in criminal proceedings against financial

officers charged with abuse of authority, stated that several anonymous

accounts belonged to Mr. S., although they belonged to him, his wife

and his mother.

19. In 1991 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für

Strafsachen) conducted criminal proceedings against Mr. Androsch

concerning charges of tax evasion. It held hearings, inter alia, on

25 and 26 May 1991.

On 1 July 1991 the periodical "Profil" published a two-page

article by the applicant, relating to the above proceedings.

20. The article started by describing the atmosphere in the court

room, stating that Mr. Androsch and his counsel displayed a

condescending attitude towards the presiding judge and the public

prosecutor. In contrast, the latter two were described as being well-

prepared and polite. Then the article turned to the anonymous accounts

at issue in the proceedings. It suggested that the device used was

quite simple, because Mr. Androsch, being in office as a Minister of

Finance until January 1981, could count on the misguided loyalty of his

financial officers. After he left, these officers were busy covering

up the whole matter. When this was no longer possible, as a court had

started investigations, Mr. Androsch's advisers delayed the

proceedings. Next, the article turned to Mr. Androsch's defence,

stating that he brought his deceased adoptive father into play, to whom

he had already earlier ascribed black money, which the latter had

actually never owned. The article then stated that inter alia the

Vienna Court of Appeal and the Finance Authorities had already proved

that Mr. Androsch was lying, as regards this question. It continued

as follows:

"Der Geldfluß der sieben Schwarzgeldkonten läßt keine andere

Auslegung als die der Steuerhinterziehung durch Androsch zu. Dessen

Verantwortung vor Gericht war - nach so vielen Jahren hätte man sich

zumindest zurechtgezimmerte Argumente erwartet - blamabel: Immer dann,

wenn ihn Richter Zeilinger auf den Punkt fragte, flüchtete er sich

entweder in Erinnerungslücken oder schob den toten 'Wahlvater' vor.

Sogar der verblichene Sir Arthur Stein, der Erforscher der

Seidenstraße, wurde strapaziert: Von ihm will er ein Legat geerbt

haben."

"The sloshing around of money of the seven "black" accounts

permits no other interpretation than that Androsch was evading taxes.

His defence before the court - after so many years one would at least

have expected tenable arguments to have been made up - was disgraceful:

Whenever judge Zeilinger asked him a precise question he escaped into

memory lapses or dragged in his deceased 'adoptive father'. Even the

late Sir Arthur Stein, the explorer of the silk route, was invoked: He

is supposed to have inherited a legacy from him."

21. The article went on to state that Mr. Androsch did not present

any new arguments, while his counsel tried to describe him as a victim

of politics. Then it turned again to the psychological relationship

between the presiding judge and the accused, stating that the presiding

judge remained polite, even when the ostentatious self-confidence of

the accused obviously unnerved him. Mr. Androsch on the other hand

turned more and more to the public in the court room, making general

speeches instead of answering precise questions. Finally, the article

reported that the proceedings would continue in autumn, in order to

take further evidence. It suggested that this would give Mr. Androsch

time to reflect on whether it could be reconciled with the principles

of the rule of law that a Minister of Finance held black money

accounts.

22. Subsequently, the applicant was charged under S. 23 of the Media

Act (Mediengesetz) as regards the passage quoted above, for having

exercised prohibited influence on criminal proceedings (verbotene

Einflußnahme auf ein Strafverfahren).

23. On 12 May 1992 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court acquitted the

applicant. It found that the text at issue was not likely to influence

the outcome of the proceedings against Mr. Androsch and that it was not

established that the applicant had acted with such an intention.

24. The Court recalled that the Vienna Regional Criminal Court

sitting as a court of two judges and two lay judges (Schöffengericht)

had, on 8 October 1991, convicted Mr. Androsch of having evaded taxes

between 1973 and 1981 and had imposed a fine of AS 1,8 million. The

Court found that, in establishing whether the incriminated passage had

been likely to influence the result of these proceedings, the wording

and contents of the article as a whole, as well as the contents of the

proceedings reported upon, the person of the accused, Mr. Androsch, and

the person of the applicant had to be taken into account. The article,

unlike court reports of the scandal press, analysed the conduct of the

presiding judge, the public prosecutor, the defence counsel and in

particular the accused, Mr. Androsch, almost as a psychologist would

do it.

25. Further, the Court found that it was clear for every reader, who

was vaguely familiar with the issue, that the applicant, who had been

working for "Profil" as a journalist for many years, had intensively

dealt with the so called "Causa Androsch" and had frequently reported

upon it. It appeared from the article that the applicant assumed that

the investigations of the Finance Authorities were correct. He

subjected the statements made by the accused at the trial on 25 and

26 May 1991 to a critical discussion from a psychological point of

view. However, his way of writing and the wording used were not likely

to influence these proceedings. Even to a lay judge, the applicant's

person and his activities as a journalist in the "Causa Androsch" were

well-known. Thus he would not expect the applicant to give a neutral

account of the proceedings. Moreover, it could not be established that

the applicant had acted with the intention to influence the outcome of

the proceedings, in particular as it appeared from his statements in

court that he was convinced that Mr. Androsch would in any case be

convicted.

26. On 19 October 1992 the Vienna Court of Appeal, on the Public

Prosecutor's appeal, held a hearing in presence of the applicant and

his counsel. The applicant was questioned and stated in particular

that the first sentence of the incriminated passage, namely that "the

sloshing around of money of the seven "black" accounts permits no other

interpretation than that Mr. Androsch was evading taxes", was a

quotation from the public prosecutor's statement during the trial. The

latter had also frequently referred to the judgment of the Vienna Court

of Appeal in the proceedings against Mr. Androsch relating to charges

of his having made false statements as a witness.

27. At the end of the hearing, the operative part of the judgment as

well as the relevant reasons were given orally. The Court convicted

the applicant under S. 23 of the Media Act for having exercised

prohibited influence on criminal proceedings and imposed a fine of 40

daily rates of AS 1.200 each (i.e. AS 48,000) or 20 days' imprisonment

in case of default of payment.

28. The Court found that the applicant had subjected Mr. Androsch's

defence, i.e. evidence in criminal proceedings, not only to a critical

discussion from a psychological point of view, as assumed by the

Regional Court, but to a negative evaluation. It also contested the

Regional Court's assumption that everybody including the lay judges

knew the applicant's long-standing commitment in the Androsch case and

would, therefore, not be influenced by his article. It was in no way

certain that the lay judges regularly read "Profil". On the contrary,

in spectacular proceedings like the ones at issue, it happened

frequently that lay judges followed the reports in papers they did not

usually read. There was no doubt that, at least with regard to the lay

judges, the reading of the incriminated article was likely to influence

the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

29. Moreover, the applicant's expertise and involvement in the

subject matter were rather an argument for, not against, establishing

that he had written the article with the intention to influence the

outcome of the proceedings. He had researched into the case since 1978

and had written more than a hundred articles about it. From the

beginning he had been convinced that Mr. Androsch had committed tax

evasion. In the incriminated article he had not only criticised Mr.

Androsch's statement but had also anticipated the outcome of the

proceedings, namely the conviction of the accused.

30. The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 March 1993.

B. Relevant domestic law

31. S. 23 of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) is entitled 'prohibited

influence on criminal proceedings' (Verbotene Einflußnahme auf ein

Strafverfahren) and reads as follows:

"Wer in einem Medium während eines gerichtlichen Strafverfahrens

nach rechtskräftiger Versetzung in den Anklagestand, ... , vor dem

Urteil erster Instanz den vermutlichen Ausgang des Strafverfahrens oder

den Wert eines Beweismittels in einer Weise erörtert, die geeignet ist,

den Ausgang des Strafverfahrens zu beeinflussen, ist vom Gericht mit

Geldstrafe bis zu 180 Tagessätzen zu bestrafen."

"Anyone who discusses, subsequent to the indictment, ..., (and)

before the first instance judgment in criminal proceedings, the

probable outcome of these proceedings or the value of evidence in a way

likely to influence the outcome of the proceedings shall be fined by

the court up to 180 daily rates."

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

32. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint

about his conviction under S. 23 of the Austrian Media Act for having

exercised prohibited influence on criminal proceedings.

B. Point at issue

33. Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether there has been

a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention

34. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention provides as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This

right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and

impart information and ideas without interference by public

authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not

prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,

television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of

others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in

confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

the judiciary."

35. The applicant submits that his conviction violated his right to

freedom of expression. He contests the necessity of the interference

with this right and argues that there was a public interest in

reporting about the proceedings against Mr. Androsch, as he was a

former Minister of Finance, and the alleged tax evasion concerned the

period when he had been in office. Moreover, his aim was not to discuss

the value of Mr. Androsch's statements as evidence in the pending

criminal proceedings, but to comment on his moral responsibility and

the condescending attitude he adopted during the trial. Further, the

applicant points out that Mr. Androsch had already in 1989 been

convicted of making false statements in the context of the same facts

as were relevant in the criminal proceedings at issue. He contests

that the incriminated statements were likely to influence the court,

as Mr. Androsch's former conviction was a fact which the court had to

take into account in any case. In the circumstances of the case, the

public interest in reporting on this matter outweighed the interest in

protecting the court from undue influence.

36. The Government submit that the prohibition contained in S. 23 of

the Media Act is necessary in a democratic society in order to enable

the judges, and in particular the lay judges, to exercise their office

independently without undue influence through media campaigns. The

said provision only incriminates such reports on criminal proceedings

as are likely to influence their outcome and are disseminated before

the judgment of first instance. In the present case, the applicant,

when writing that no other interpretation was possible than that

Mr. Androsch was evading taxes, made a statement, which amounted to a

typical media prejudgment of the accused. He thereby went beyond the

limits of a permissible reporting on the trial. Moreover, the

Government submit that the interference complained of was also

necessary for the protection of the accused, and in particular to

guarantee that the presumption of innocence was respected by the media.

Finally, the Government submit that the fine imposed on the applicant

was not disproportionate to these aims.

37. The Commission finds that the applicant's conviction amounts to

an interference by public authority with the exercise of the

applicant's right to freedom of expression, which is in breach of

Article 10, (Art. 10) if it does not fall within one of the exceptions

provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article, namely being prescribed

by law and necessary in a democratic society for one of the aims

mentioned in this paragraph (Eur. Court H.R., Observer and Guardian

judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, p. 27, para. 49).

38. The Commission notes that the contested decision was prescribed

by law, i.e. the Austrian Media Act. It served a legitimate aim,

namely maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary,

which phrase also includes the protection of the rights of litigants

(see Eur. Court H.R., Observer and Guardian judgment, loc. cit., p. 28,

para. 56; Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30,

p. 34, para. 56).

39. As regards the necessity of the interference complained of, the

Commission recalls that the adjective "necessary" within the meaning

of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) implies the existence of a "pressing

social need". The Contracting States have a certain margin of

appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand

in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the law and the

decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. The

interference complained of has to be looked at in the light of the case

as a whole, and it has to be determined whether it was "proportionate

to the legitimate aim pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the

national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient", due

regard being had to the importance of freedom of expression in a

democratic society (see Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of

26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, p. 29, para. 50; Observer and

Guardian judgment, loc. cit., p. 30, para. 59).

40. In the present case, the pursuit of the aims under Article 10

para. 2 (Art. 10-2) has to be weighed against the particular importance

of the freedom of expression as far as the press is concerned and the

value of open discussion of topics of public concern (cf. Eur. Court

H.R., Observer and Guardian judgment, loc. cit.; Barfod judgment of

22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 29). In this

connection the Commission recalls that it is incumbent on the press to

impart information and ideas on political issues just as on those in

other areas of public interest. Not only does the press have the task

of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right

to receive them (Eur. Court H.R. Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986,

Series A no. 103, p. 26, para. 41).

41. The Commission notes that the applicant was accused of having

exercised prohibited influence on criminal proceedings as regards one

passage of an article published by him in a periodical. He was

acquitted at first instance by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court. It

found that the applicant had subjected the statements of Mr. Androsch,

the accused in the criminal proceedings concerned, to a critical

discussion from a psychological point of view. Further, he was a well

known journalist who had reported on the Androsch case for years and

whom nobody would expect to give a completely neutral account of the

proceedings. In conclusion, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found

that the incriminated passage was not likely to influence the outcome

of the proceedings. The Vienna Court of Appeal, upon the Public

Prosecutor's appeal, quashed the first instance court judgment and

convicted the applicant. It found that the applicant had evaluated

Mr. Androsch's statements, i.e. evidence in the criminal proceedings

against him, in a negative way and anticipated Mr. Androsch's

conviction. The Court of Appeal also considered that the incriminated

text was likely to influence the outcome of the proceedings at least

with regard to the lay judges.

42. The Commission finds that the reasons given by the Vienna Court

of Appeal were "relevant" in terms of the aim of maintaining the

authority of the judiciary, which includes the interest of the accused

to be protected against a prejudgment by the media, in particular where

a criminal court is sitting with lay judges. The question remains

whether they were "sufficient".

43. The Commission finds that the Vienna Court of Appeal did not

weigh the public interest in preventing undue influence of the media

on pending criminal proceedings, against the public interest in

receiving information relating to the conduct of a former Minister of

Finance, who had to face charges of tax evasion. When examining

whether the incriminated text was likely to influence the outcome of

the proceedings, the said court, unlike the Vienna Regional Criminal

Court, did not take the wording and the contents of the article as a

whole into account. Moreover, the Vienna Court of Appeal failed to deal

with the applicant's defence that he only quoted the public

prosecutor's statement at the trial, when writing that there was no

other possible interpretation than that Mr. Androsch was evading taxes.

The Commission considers that this is an important element, as it is

difficult to see how statements which had already been made in court

by the Public Prosecutor could be likely to unduly influence the

judges. The Commission observes that the incriminated passage is part

of a two-page article, which inter alia reports on the background of

the criminal proceedings against Mr. Androsch. It follows immediately

after reference is made to the fact that Mr. Androsch had already been

convicted by an earlier judgment of having made false statements in

relation to the ownership of the anonymous accounts, which were at

issue in the pending proceedings. Having regard to its specific

context, the conclusion suggested by the applicant, namely that

Mr. Androsch was evading taxes, appears as merely describing a state

of suspicion, which the judges, including the lay judges, were in a

position to evaluate independently. In these circumstances, the

Commission finds that the reasons adduced by the Vienna Court of Appeal

were not "sufficient" for the purposes of Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2).

44. In conclusion the Commission finds that the interference with the

applicant's right to freedom of expression was not "necessary in a

democtratic society ... for maintaining the authority and impartiality

of the judiciary". It was disproportionate to the legitimate aim

pursued and therefore not justified under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of

(Art. 10-2) on.

CONCLUSION

45. The Commission concludes, by 18 votes to 11, that in the present

case there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)

(Or. English)

DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. E. BUSUTTIL, A. WEITZEL, J.-C. SOYER,

H.G. SCHERMERS, F. MARTINEZ, MRS. J. LIDDY, MM. L LOUCAIDES, I. CABRAL

BARRETO, N. BRATZA, G. RESS, K. HERNDL

We agree that the interference with the applicant's right to

freedom of expression was prescribed by law and that the essential

question is whether the reasons given by the Vienna Court of Appeal

were "relevant" and "sufficient" for the purpose of meeting the test

of necessity in a democratic society.

The Vienna Court of Appeal, in its judgment, recognised the

applicant's involvement in the case of Mr. Androsch and his right to

criticise Mr. Androsch's statements in defence against the charges of

tax evasion. However, weighing the different aspects of the case, the

Court of Appeal considered that the applicant's article went beyond

permissible criticism and amounted to a negative evaluation of Mr.

Androsch's defence which was likely to influence the outcome of the

proceedings against him.

We are satisfied that the interference complained of was not

aimed at restricting the applicant's right to inform the public on the

course of criminal proceedings against a well-known former Austrian

politician. Moreover, it cannot be considered to have had the result

of effectively limiting this right, as it was possible to report on the

various aspects of the proceedings against Mr. Androsch, without

prejudging their outcome.

In particular, the statement that "the sloshing around of money

of the seven black accounts permits no other interpretation than that

Androsch was evading taxes" cannot be regarded as merely describing the

existence of suspicion or, in the absence of any attribution to the

public prosecutor, as a mere record of a submission already made in

open court by a party to the proceedings, assuming that the public

prosecutor did in fact use these words. It amounted to a statement that

the applicant considered it beyond doubt that Mr. Androsch was guilty

of a criminal offence. It could only be understood by the public in

this sense. The statement was published at a time when the court had

to reach its verdict and when the impartiality of the lay judges in

particular could be affected by extraneous influence.

Therefore, bearing also in mind the high profile character of the

proceedings, we find that the reasons adduced by the Court of Appeal

for the applicant's conviction, were "relevant" and "sufficient" for

the purposes of Article 10 para. 2.

Furthermore, we are of the opinion that, taking the amount of the

fine imposed upon the applicant into account, the interference

complained of was "proportionate" to the legitimate aims pursued, of

maintaining the authority and, in particular, the impartiality of the

judiciary and protecting the right of the accused to the presumption

of innocence.

We find that, having regard to the margin of appreciation of the

member States, the Vienna Court of Appeal was entitled to consider that

the applicant's conviction for having exercised prohibited influence

on criminal proceedings was "necessary in a democratic society".

Accordingly, the interference complained of can be considered to be

justified under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention.

Menu

WORM v. AUSTRIA

WORM v. AUSTRIA