Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25181/94

by H. U. H.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. S. TRECHSEL

J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 September 1994

by H. U. H. against Switzerland and registered on 19 September 1994

under file No. 25181/94;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

2 April 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 19 June 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Swiss citizen, is an engineer residing in

Wattenwil in Switzerland. Before the Commission he is represented by

Mr R. Schaller, a lawyer practising in Geneva.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant undertakes environmental biological research in his

own laboratory. One research project concerned food prepared in

microwave ovens.

In spring 1991, he published, together with B., a professor at

the Federal Technical High School in Lausanne, a research report with

the title "Comparative investigations on the effects on human beings

of food prepared by conventional means and in microwave ovens". The

report contained the following results:

"Food which has been heated up, or thawed out, or cooked, in a

microwave oven (milk and vegetables) caused in the blood of the

test persons some significant changes such as: the reduction of

all haemoglobin values, and an increase of haematocrits,

leucocytes and of cholesteric values, in particular of the HDL

and LDL portions. As regards lymphocytes, a more pronounced

decrease in the short term was apparent, particularly in the case

of vegetables prepared in the microwave oven, than in all other

variants.

On the basis of the luminosity of luminous bacteria, a

significant relation was apparent between the absorption by the

radiated food of technical microwave energy and the luminosity

which was subsequently measured in the blood serum of the test

persons. It can be concluded therefrom that this technical

energy was inductively transmitted via the food to the human

being; a process which is determined according to physical laws

and which is confirmed by statements in literature.

The measured effects of microwaves via food on human beings

demonstrate, as opposed to unradiated food, changes in the blood

which indicate the commencement of a pathological process, as

also found when cancerous growth is initiated."

"Die im Mikrowellenherd erhitzte, aufgetaute oder gekochte

Nahrung (Milch und Gemüse) verursachte im Blut von Probanden

teils signifikante Veränderungen wie: Abnahme aller Hämoglobin-

Werte und Zunahme des Hämatokrites, der Leukozyten und der

Cholesterin-Werte, im besonderen der HDL- und der LDL-Anteile.

Bei den Lympozyten war vor allem beim im Mikrowellenofen

aufbereiteten Gemüse eine kurzfristig stärkere Abnahme

feststellbar als bei allen anderen Varianten.

Anhand der Leuchtkraft lumineszierender Bakterien wurde ein

signifikanter Zusammenhang zwischen der Aufnahme technischer

Mikrowellen-Energie von den bestrahlten Nahrungsmitteln und der

Leuchtkraft, die anschliessend im Blutserum der Probanden

gemessen werden konnte, festgestellt. Daraus kann eine induktive

Weitergabe dieser technischen Energie via die Nahrung auf den

Menschen abgeleitet werden; ein Vorgang, der physikalisch

gesetzmässig festgelegt ist und auch durch Aussagen in der

Literatur bestätigt wird.

Die gemessenen Auswirkungen der Mikrowellen über die Nahrung auf

den Menschen zeigen, im Gegensatz zur nichtbestrahlten Nahrung,

Veränderungen im Blut, die auf den Beginn eines pathologischen

Prozesses hinweisen, und wie sie auch bei der Auslösung eines

Krebsgeschehens vorliegen."

In 1992 a number of journals and magazines referred to the

applicant's report either fully or in part, for instance "Raum & Zeit"

and "Vita Sana Magazin".

The "Journal Franz Weber" had on the cover page the text

"Microwaves: Danger scientifically proven" and displayed a reaper

(Sensemann) carrying a microwave oven. The article itself had the

title "Microwave ovens: a danger for health. The evidence is

uncontestable" and stated inter alia:

"The research results of B. and (the applicant) are so worrying

that one should prohibit the use of microwaves as soon as

possible and stop the production and trade of such apparatuses.

At the same time all microwave ovens currently in use should be

destroyed. Public health is at stake! ... The ... indubitably

proven, devastating characteristics of microwaves adversely

affect ... also directly via the radiated food the human being."

"Die Forschungsergebnisse von B. und (des Beschwerdeführers) sind

dermassen besorgniserregend, dass man den Gebrauch von

Mikrowellen schnellstens verbieten und die Herstellung sowie den

Handel mit solchen Geräten einstellen sollte. Zugleich sollten

alle Mikrowellenherde, die derzeit in Betrieb sind, vernichtet

werden. Die öffentliche Gesundheit steht auf dem Spiel! ... Die

... zweifellos bewiesenen, zerstörerischen Eigenschaften der

Mikrowellen wirken ... auch auf direktem Wege über die bestrahlte

Nahrung schädlich auf den Menschen."

The "Journal Franz Weber" mentioned the applicant's name both as

the co-author of the article and the editor of the journal.

In a previous article in the "Journal Franz Weber", published in

1989, the applicant had written:

"Today, microwaves, together with cigarettes, are probably one

of the worst reasons for cancer which the human mind has ever

thought up ... Have you got a microwave oven within your walls?

Then bring it as soon as possible back to where you bought it so

it can be disposed of! For microwave ovens are more malicious

than the gas stoves of Dachau. If you prepare your meals in such

an oven, your slow death will begin ..."

"Die Mikrowellen gehören heute zusammen mit den Zigaretten zu den

wohl schlimmsten Ursachen des Krebses, die das menschliche Gehirn

sich jemals ausgedacht hat ... Haben Sie in Ihren Wänden einen

Mikrowellenofen? Dann bringen Sie ihn schleunigst zur

Beseitigung dorthin zurück, wo Sie ihn gekauft haben! Denn die

Mikrowellenöfen sind heimtückischer als die Gasöfen von Dachau!

Wenn Sie ihr Essen in solch einem Ofen zubereiten, beginnt Ihr

langsames Sterben ..."

Professor B. later distanced himself in a newspaper article from

the applicant's publications. In Professor B.'s submissions, the

research of 1989 only permitted the conclusion that further research

should be undertaken on the matter. He found that the applicant's

conclusions had such a weak basis that a normal scientist would never

have dared formulate them.

Subsequently, the Association of Electrical Appliances for

Household and Trade in Switzerland (Fachverband Elektroapparate für

Haushalt und Gewerbe in der Schweiz) told the applicant that his

statements concerning the influence on the health of human beings of

microwave ovens amounted to a completely unjustified denunciation

(Verteufelung) of the apparatus lacking serious scientific conclusions.

The applicant was requested to issue a declaration according to which

in future he would no longer make any unfair statements about microwave

ovens. The applicant did not react thereto.

On 7 August 1992 the Association filed an action against the

applicant before the Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) of the Canton

of Bern. The Association submitted an expert opinion of Professor T.

of the Federal Technical High School at Zurich who had specialised in

food research. In his opinion, Professor T. concluded that the

applicant's research was useless and the conclusions untenable.

On 19 March 1993 the Commercial Court upheld the action and

prohibited the applicant, under threat of punishment, from stating that

food which had been prepared in microwave ovens was hazardous to health

and led to changes in the blood of consumers, indicating a situation

which could amount to the beginning of cancerous growth. The applicant

was also prohibited from using in publications or in public conferences

about microwave ovens the picture of a reaper or any other symbol of

death. The Court relied in its decision on Sections 2 and 3(a) of the

Federal Unfair Competition Act (Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren

Wettbewerb, see below, Relevant domestic law).

The applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) which the Federal Court

(Bundesgericht) dismissed on 25 February 1994, the decision being

served on 28 March 1994.

In its decision, the Court found that scientific research and

publications did not as such fall within the framework of competition

(wettbewerbsgerichtet) as long as they remained academic. Scientific

statements interfered with competition, however, if, as in the present

case, they were employed negatively to influence the sale of a

particular product.

The Court further noted that in the proceedings the applicant had

admitted that he liked the idea of the death symbol of a reaper, and

that Professor B. had formally distanced himself from the research.

The decision continued:

"Positive or negative publicity with scientific data must

therefore, in the public interest and in order to ensure

effective competition, only be admitted if the data correspond

to established scientific conclusions, or at least if the

diverging views are clearly referred to. If there is no full

guarantee that the scientific data are correct, their uncritical

publication is at least misleading and therefore deceptive within

the meaning of Article 3 para. a of the Federal Unfair

Competition Act ... According to the Commercial Court's

conclusions the applicant's views are not at all scientifically

secure; on the contrary, they are, on the whole, rejected. To

state in the context of competition that they are correct is

inadmissible within the meaning of Article 3 para. a of the

Federal Unfair Competition Act..."

"Positive wie negative Werbung mit wissenschaftlichen Angaben ist

daher im Interesse der Allgemeinheit und des funktionierenden

Wettbewerbs bloss zuzulassen, wenn diese Angaben gesicherter

wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis entsprechen, oder wenn jedenfalls

unmissverständlich auf den Meinungsstreit hingewiesen wird.

Besteht keine volle Gewähr für die Richtigkeit der

wissenschaftlichen Angaben, ist deren unkritische Weitergabe zum

mindesten täuschend und damit irreführend im Sinne von Art. 3

lit. a UWG ... Nach den tatsächlichen Feststellungen des

Handelsgerichts ist die Auffassung des Beklagten keineswegs

wissenschaftlich gesichert, vielmehr wird sie überwiegend

abgelehnt. Sie im Wettbewerbsbezug als richtig auszugeben, ist

nach Art. 3 lit. a UWG nicht zulässig ..."

The Court concluded that a person relying on the freedom of

scientific research was free to explain his conclusions within academic

circles. However, in the context of competition he could not assume

that his views were correct if they were disputed.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. According to Section 2 of the Federal Unfair Competition Act

(Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb), any conduct,

influencing relations between competitors or between persons offering

and receiving, is unfair and unlawful if it is deceptive or in any

other way breaches the principle of good faith.

According to Section 3 para. a of the Federal Act, unfair conduct

consists of diminishing others, their goods, works, achievements, their

prices or their business situation by means of incorrect, misleading

or unnecessarily damaging statements (wer andere, ihre Waren, Werke,

Leistungen, deren Preise oder ihre Geschäftsverhältnisse durch

unrichtige, irreführende oder unnötig verletzende Äusserungen

herabsetzt).

Section 9 envisages an action for persons claiming to have been

threatened by means of unfair competition.

2. According to Section 84 of the Federal Judiciary Act

(Organisationsgesetz), complaints about cantonal acts must be raised

before the Federal Court by means of a public law appeal

(staatsrechtliche Beschwerde).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of the

prohibition to publish his views according to which he has scientific

proof that microwave ovens are hazardous for consumers' health. He is

by no means the only one to draw attention to these dangers; reference

is made for instance to an article in Le Monde of 27 February 1993

according to which Electricité de France is undertaking research on the

effects of electromagnetic fields on health.

The applicant submits that the interference with his right under

Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention was not "prescribed by law" within

the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention; thus, the Federal

Unfair Competition Act is too general and does not cover scientific

research. Moreover, there was no aim justifying the interference with

the applicant's rights within the meaning of para. 2 of Article 10 of

the Convention, and the interference was also not "necessary in a

democratic society" within the meaning of this provision. Thus, he did

not publish his conclusions in a commercial context, and it was

absolutely disproportionate to stifle the applicant's weak critical

voice in view of the opportunities available to producers to present

the advantages of their product.

2. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that

the prohibition to publish his views calls in question his position as

a scientist.

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

that the authorities prohibited him from undertaking an act which he

did not intend to carry out.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 13 September 1994 and

registered on 19 September 1994.

On 16 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on 2 April

1996. The applicant replied on 19 June 1996, after an extension of the

time-limit fixed for that purpose.

THE LAW

Under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the applicant

complains of the prohibition to publish the results of his scientific

research. The applicant also invokes Articles 6 and 8 (Art. 6, 8) of

the Convention.

Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,

states:

"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 ...

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."

The Government submit that the interference with the applicant's

rights was justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the

Convention. Thus, the measure was "prescribed by law" as required by

this provision in

that it was based on Section 9 of the Unfair Competition Act.

Moreover, the measure aimed at "the protection of the ... rights of

others" and "the prevention of disorder" within the meaning of

Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

The Government submit that the domestic authorities had not

exceeded the margin of appreciation left to them under Article 10

para. 2 (Art. 10-2). Thus, the measure only affected the applicant in

his commercial competition relations. He remains free to undertake

scientific studies and to publish his results, in particular in

scientific and academic circles. It is true that scientific progress

at times originates in far-fetched ideas, and the Federal Court never

determined whether or not microwave ovens damaged health.

In the Government's opinion, the question before the authorities

was whether or not these dangers were scientifically proven. They

concluded that there was a controversy in this respect and that one

could not therefore refer to objectively and scientifically established

dangers. Indeed, commercial publicity is inadmissible where it is

incorrectly presented as being scientifically proven. Insofar as the

applicant also employed symbols of death in his publications, this was

bad taste, unnecessarily hurtful and misleading. In a publication in

1989 the applicant compared microwave ovens with Nazi concentration

camps.

These arguments are contested by the applicant. He contends that

the law is unclear. It gives the impression that it concerns persons

interested in competition. A wide interpretation of the law would

prevent a large number of religious, philosophical or political

opinions. The applicant further points out that Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention does not mention "the economic well-being

of the country" as in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

The applicant further submits that the Government are avoiding

the real issue, namely whether it can be justified to prohibit the

publication of a thesis only because it is not considered to be

scientifically proven. The authorities intervened in a phase of

scientific research and issued a prohibition although the applicant

undertakes individual research and plays no part in the commerce of

microwave ovens. The publication of 1989 was never the object of the

present proceedings.

The applicant claims that it is disproportionate to throttle a

weak critic whereas the producers of microwave ovens constantly

advertise their products. Freedom of opinion is a necessity in a

democratic society in that it can make the authorities and science

discover problems of public health.

The Commission finds that this complaint raises serious questions

of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination

should depend on an examination of the merits. The case cannot,

therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no

other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits of the case.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

HERTEL v. SWITZERLAND

HERTEL v. SWITZERLAND

LEXI