Search
document

Document text Analytics

VERENIGING RECHTSWINKELS UTRECHT v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11308/84 • ECHR ID: 001-559

Document date: March 13, 1986

Inbound citations: 4
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

VERENIGING RECHTSWINKELS UTRECHT v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11308/84 • ECHR ID: 001-559

Document date: March 13, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 March 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GUZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Having regard to the application introduced on 11 December 1984 by

V.R.U. against the Netherlands and registered on 17 December 1984

under file No. 11308/84;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an association (V.R.U.) with its registered office at

Utrecht. In the proceedings before the Commission it is represented

by Mrs. Kubatsch, a lawyer practising at Utrecht.

As from 1978, the applicant had weekly office hours by permission of

the prison director, and on an apparently experimental basis, at the

prison of Utrecht (Huis van Bewaring I), in order to provide the

prisoners with certain legal information and to look after their

interests on a non-commercial basis.

On 20 September 1982, some prisoners informed members of the applicant

association about the circumstances under which a prisoner had

committed suicide. At the request of the prisoners, the applicant

asked the Chief Prosecutor (Hoofd Officier van Justitie) to order an

inquiry into the circumstances under which the suicide had taken

place. At the request of the prisoners and after permission from the

deceased's mother, but without informing the prison authorities, the

applicant drafted a press relese which was given to the General Dutch

Press Agency (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau).

As a result of this press release, several newspapers published

articles about the suicide, in which apparently the blame for the

incident was put on the prison authorities. The applicant's behaviour

in this respect appears to have greatly disturbed prison staff which

had spent much time and care on the prisoner concerned.

On 8 November 1982, the director of the prison withdrew the

applicant's right of access to the prison.

On 28 November 1982, the applicant appealed against this decision to

the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction (Afdeling Rechtspraak

van de Raad van State) but this appeal was rejected on 14 June 1984.

The Council considered, inter alia, that the applicant had failed to

respect its agreement with the director of the prison concerning the

way in which legal advice and information were to be given and found

that this had adversely affected the living conditions in the prison.

The Council also attached importance to the fact that the prison

director had already taken steps to ensure a continuation of legal

assistance in the prison.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that it is deprived of the right to gather and

impart information and to express its ideas concerning this

information because of the withdrawal of its right to operate in the

prison of Utrecht. The applicant invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant has complained that, because of the withdrawal

of its right of access to the prison, it could no longer express

certain ideas and has invoked Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention

which reads inter alia:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion; this right includes freedom

to change his religion or belief and freedom, either

alone or in community with others and in public or

private, to manifest his religion or belief, in

worship, teaching, practice and observance. ...."

The Commission recalls that Article 9 (Art. 9) primarily protects the

sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds, i.e. the area which

is sometimes called the forum internum. In addition, it protects acts

which are intimately linked to these attitudes such as acts of worship

or devotion which are aspects of the practice of a religion or belief

in a generally recognised form.

The Commission, however, finds that although the aims of the applicant

association are of an idealistic nature, viz. providing legal advice

to prisoners and looking after their interests on a non-commercial

basis, it cannot be said that in the present case it exercised the

rights contained in Article 9, para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 9-1)

either in its own capacity or as a representative of its members (cf.

Dec. No. 7805/77, 5.5.79, D.R. 16, p. 60). This part of the

application must, consequently, be rejected as manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant has further complained that the decision of the

prison authorities to withdraw its right of access constituted an

unjustified interference with its right to freedom of expression. The

applicant has invoked Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in this

respect, which provides that:

"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 responsibiities, 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."

The Commission notes that the applicant was granted access to the

prison concerned on the basis of an agreement between the applicant

and the prison director concerning the way in which the former would

carry out its activity in prison. The applicant was not hindered in

expressing its opinion to the press, but as this expression was in

breach of the agreement with the prison director, it resulted in the

termination of the agreement.

The Commission is of the opinion that the termination of the agreement

did not restrict the applicant's right to impart information any

further than the applicant had accepted when entering into the

agreement. The decision taken by the authorities not to grant the

application further permission to operate in prison thus cannot be

considered to constitute an interference with the applicant's rights

under Article 10, para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.

It follows that the remainder of the application must also be rejected

as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secrtary to the Commission President to the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant