AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 25405/94

                      by Alois SCHÖPFER

                      against Switzerland

      The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 September 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

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 P. LORENZEN

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           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 11 August 1994 by

Alois Schöpfer against Switzerland and registered on 11 October 1994

under file No. 25405/94;

      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

      20 February 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

      applicant on 30 April 1996;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1953, is a lawyer

practising in Lucerne, Switzerland.

Particular circumstances of the case

      The applicant was acting as counsel for S. who was remanded in

custody in the District Prison of Hochdorf in the Canton of Lucerne on

suspicion of having committed various financial offences.

      On 6 November 1992 S.'s wife informed the applicant that the

District Registrars of the Hochdorf District Office had urged her to

find another lawyer for her husband if the latter wanted to be released

from detention.

      In view thereof and of other alleged occurrences the applicant

held a press conference in his office in Lucerne on 9 November 1992.

      On 10 November 1992 the newspaper "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten"

(LNN) printed the following article on p. 25:

      Former member of parliament of the Christian Popular Party (CVP)

      demands investigation against the Hochdorf District Office.

      "I shall no longer let myself be fooled by these gentlemen"

      The former CVP member of parliament levels serious charges

      against the Hochdorf District Office.

           "I've had enough", curses (the applicant), "of being fooled

      by the gentlemen of the Hochdorf District Office.  I have no

      other means left than to go to the press."  The former CVP member

      of parliament was prompted to take the unusual step of

      approaching the public during pending proceedings on account of

      a case entrusted to him as a lawyer in mid-October.  At that time

      his client had already been remanded in custody for a month at

      Hochdorf District Prison.

      Detained without a warrant of arrest

           The 20 year old father of a daughter of one and a half

      years was arrested on 18 August together with his brother on

      account of stealing a car radio and clothes; he was released

      after having admitted the offences.  When on 15 September he

      wanted to inquire at the Lucerne Cantonal Police about his

      brother's situation, he was again immediately arrested.

           "When I inquired at the Hochdorf District Office about the

      warrant of arrest", (the applicant) remembers, "I was told that

      the warrant had been issued orally"; (the applicant) regards this

      as a clear breach of the cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure

      which states in Section 82: "The arrest is undertaken by the

      police duly authorised by a written warrant of arrest."

           When faced with this reproach, the Hochdorf District

      Officer H.B. remains buttoned up: "With me nobody is arrested

      without a written warrant of arrest.  I cannot say more while the

      proceedings are pending."  On the other hand, (the applicant) no

      longer intends to remain silent; he has been asked by the

      accused's wife to represent him: "His wife came to me because the

      officially appointed lawyer had failed to contact his client even

      though he had already been remanded in custody during six weeks."

           (The applicant) immediately contacted the officially

      appointed counsel who then withdrew from the case.  However, the

      Hochdorf District Office did not want (the applicant) as new

      counsel and refused his request on 29 October on the ground that

      there were no reasons to disengage the previous lawyer.  He was,

      however, free privately to represent his client.

      (The applicant) as a ground for detention?

           (The applicant) finally had enough when the accused's wife

      last Friday informed him that the two District Registrars Th.B.

      and B.B. had advised her not to continue collaboration with him.

      "They told me", the wife confirms to the LNN, "that my husband

      would not be released from detention as long as (the applicant)

      was his defence lawyer."  Th.B. will have nothing to do with

      that: "That's ridiculous.  I never said anything like that.  B.B.

      can confirm that.  He was present when I spoke with the wife."

           (The applicant) is not satisfied by that: "I demand that

      the District Officer and the District Registrars immediately step

      down and that a neutral Commission from another Canton carefully

      examine the matter."

      Ehemaliger CVP-Grossrat verlangt Untersuchung gegen

      Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf.

      "Ich lasse mich von diesen Herren nicht länger für dumm

      verkaufen"

      Der ehemalige CVP-Grossrat erhebt schwere Vorwürfe gegen das

      Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf.

      "Ich habe es satt", wettert (der Beschwerdeführer), "mich von den

      Herren vom Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf für dumm verkaufen zu

      lassen.  Deshalb bleibt mir nur noch der Weg über die Presse."

      Bewogen zu dem ungewöhnlichen Schritt, während eines laufenden

      Verfahrens an die Öffentlichkeit zu gelangen, hat den ehemaligen

      CVP-Grossrat ein Fall, mit dem er als Anwalt Mitte Oktober

      betraut wurde.  Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sass sein Klient bereits seit

      einem Monat im Hochdorfer Untersuchungsgefängnis.

      Ohne Haftbefehl festgenommen

           Der 20jährige Vater einer anderthalbjährigen Tochter war am

      18. August zusammen mit seinem Bruder wegen Diebstahls von

      Autoradios und Kleidern verhaftet und nach einem Geständnis

      wieder freigelassen worden.  Als er sich am 15. September auf der

      Kantonspolizei Luzern nach dem Befinden seines Bruders erkundigen

      wollte, wurde er unverzüglich wieder festgenommen.

           "Als ich auf dem Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf nach dem

      Haftbefehl fragte, wurde mir mitgeteilt, dieser sei ihm mündlich

      eröffnet worden", erinnert sich (der Beschwerdeführer), der das

      Vorgehen der Polizei als eine klare Verletzung der kantonalen

      Strafprozessordnung betrachtet, die im Paragraph 82 vorschreibt:

      "Die Verhaftung wird von der Polizei vollzogen, die sich durch

      einen schriftlichen Haftbefehl auszuweisen hat."

           Auf diesen Vorwurf angesprochen, gibt sich Hochdorfs

      Amtsstatthalter H.B. zugeknöpft: "Bei mir wird niemand ohne

      schriftlichen Haftbefehl festgenommen.  Mehr kann ich zu einem

      laufenden Verfahren nicht sagen."  Nicht länger schweigen will

      dagegen (der Beschwerdeführer), der von der Frau des

      Angeschuldigten gebeten wurde, ihren Mann zu verteidigen: "Die

      Frau kam zu mir, weil der amtliche Verteidiger noch keinen

      Kontakt mit seinem Klienten aufgenommen hatte, obwohl er seit

      sechs Wochen in Untersuchungshaft sass."

           (Der Beschwerdeführer) setzte sich umgehend mit dem

      amtlichen Verteidiger in Verbindung, der ihm den Fall abtrat.

      Das Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf wollte dagegen (den

      Beschwerdeführer) nicht als neuen amtlichen Verteidiger und

      lehnte sein Gesuch am 29. Oktober mit der Begründung ab, es

      bestände keine Veranlassung, den bisherigen Rechtsanwalt von

      seinem Amt zu entbinden.  Es stünde ihm jedoch frei, den Klienten

      privat zu verteidigen.

      (Der Beschwerdeführer) als Haftgrund?

           Der Kragen platzte (dem Beschwerdeführer), als ihm die Frau

      des Angeklagten am letzten Freitag mitteilte, die beiden

      Amtsschreiber Th.B. und B.B. hätten ihr von einer weiteren

      Zusammenarbeit mit ihm abgeraten.  "Sie erklärten mir",

      bestätigt die Frau gegenüber der LNN, "dass mein Mann nicht aus

      der Haft entlassen werde, solange (der Beschwerdeführer) sein

      Verteidiger sei."  Davon will Th.B. allerdings nichts wissen:

      "Das ist doch lächerlich.  So etwas habe ich nie gesagt.  Das

      kann B.B. bestätigen.  Er war dabei, als ich mit der Frau

      gesprochen habe."

           (Der Beschwerdeführer) will den Vorfall nicht auf sich

      beruhen lassen: "Ich verlange, dass unverzüglich der

      Amtsstatthalter und die Schreiber in Ausstand treten und eine

      neutrale ausserkantonale Kommission die Angelegenheit unter die

      Lupe nimmt."

      Inserted into this text was the further article:

      "REPROACHES

           It is not the first time that substantial charges are

      levelled against the Hochdorf District Office.  Already in

      connection with the conviction of the Debt Execution Officer H.S.

      of Rothenburg investigations were undertaken against District

      Officer H.B.  He was convicted by the Lucerne District Court and

      sentenced to a fine of 400 SFr on account of a breach of official

      secrets.  Although the Court of Appeal also found that

      objectively he had committed the offence, H.B. was acquitted."

      "VORWÜRFE

           Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass gegen das

      Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf massive Vorwürfe erhoben werden.

      Schon im Zusammenhang mit der Verurteilung des Rothenburger

      Betreibungsbeamten H.S. wurde gegen Amtsstatthalter H.B.

      ermittelt.  Er wurde vom Amtsgericht Luzern wegen Verletzung des

      Amtsgeheimnisses zu einer Busse von 400 Franken verurteilt.

      Obwohl auch das Obergericht zum Schluss kam, der objektive

      Tatbestand sei erfüllt, wurde H.B. freigesprochen."

      Two photographs were included, one with the Hochdorf District

Office, the other depicting District Officer H.B. and accompanied by

the text: "with me nobody is detained without a written warrant of

arrest" ("bei mir wird niemand ohne schriftlichen Haftbefehl

festgehalten").

      Another newspaper, the Luzerner Zeitung, also ran on 10 November

1992 an article on the press conference with the headline "Young man

detained without warrant of arrest?  Lucerne lawyer accuses the

Hochdorf District Office of breaching the law" ("Junger Mann ohne

Haftbefehl verhaftet?  Luzerner Anwalt wirft Amtsstatthalteramt

Hochdorf Rechtsverletzungen vor").

      On 10 November 1992 the Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) of the Canton of Lucerne wrote a reply according

to which the accused person concerned had been arrested in accordance

with the law, and the applicant had failed to file an appeal against

the refusal to appoint him as official defence counsel.  This reply was

published in the press on 11 November 1992.

      On 13 November 1992 the Luzerner Zeitung summarised a press

communique issued by the applicant in reply to the Public Prosecutor's

statement.  According to the applicant, S.'s detention was in breach

of inter alia Convention rights.  The applicant also cited the letter

of another lawyer St. according to which "the situation in Hochdorf is

far from satisfactory ...  It is a catastrophe that the organs of

justice know about the circumstances in Hochdorf and also covertly

discuss them" ("die Zustände in Hochdorf (sind) alles andere als

erfreulich ...  Katastrophal ist ja auch, dass man bei der Justiz die

Verhältnisse kennt und hinter vorgehaltener Hand auch darüber

diskutiert").

      According to an article in the Luzerner Zeitung of 19 November

1992 the Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsbehörde) of the Bar of the Canton

of Lucerne had written to the applicant, asking him for explanations;

the applicant had replied inter alia by stating that he had acted

lawfully and in the interests of his client.

      Meanwhile, the applicant filed a request for S.'s release from

detention on remand.  On 16 November 1992 the Hochdorf District Officer

dismissed the request.

      The applicant filed an appeal which the Court of Appeal

(Obergericht) of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed on 30 November 1992.

The Court of Appeal noted, however, that S., after his arrest, had

incorrectly been brought before the District Registrar instead of the

District Officer who alone qualified as a judge or other officer

authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of

Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.  For this reason, the Court of

Appeal ordered the decision to be brought to the attention of the

Public Prosecutor's Office as the District Officer's supervisory

authority.

      On 21 December 1992 the Supervisory Board of the Bar instituted

disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

      On 15 March 1993 the Lawyers' Supervisory Board imposed, with

reference to Section 13 of the Statute of the Bar (Anwaltsgesetz; see

below, Relevant domestic law) of the Canton of Lucerne a fine of

500 SFr on the applicant on account of professional misconduct

(Verletzung von Berufs- und Standespflichten).

      In its decision the Supervisory Board found in particular that

the applicant had failed first to raise the charges at issue before the

Public Prosecutor's Office or the Court of Appeal.  He had thus not

demonstrated the discretion called for in pending proceedings; he had

also demonstrated that in fact he wanted to obtain publicity.  By not

filing an appeal he had also implied that the appeal bodies in the

Canton of Lucerne were not trustworthy.  On the whole the applicant's

conduct called in question the reputation of the judiciary in the

Canton of Lucerne.

      The applicant's public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde)

was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 21 April 1994.

      In its decision, the Court considered that the interference with

the applicant's right to freedom of expression was based on Section 12

of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne (see below, Relevant

domestic law).  It also considered that lawyers had substantial freedom

(weitgehende Freiheit) to criticise the judiciary as long as the

criticism was duly expressed in the procedural forms.  On the other

hand, lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the

judiciary.  When examining whether the interference occurred in the

public interest, it had to be considered how clear the alleged breaches

of the law were; whether pending proceedings could be influenced;

whether there was the possibility of introducing legal remedies; and

in what manner the charges were raised.  The decision continues:

      "It is true that one of the complaints - the applicant having

      contested a possible practice of the District Office - was

      subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of

      Lucerne.  Contrary to the applicant's submissions, the

      Supervisory Board considered this in the contested decision.

      Apart from these reasons charges raised in public were not well-

      founded; they could also have influenced pending proceedings. ...

      Furthermore the Supervisory Board reproached the applicant for

      having chosen the wrong tone in respect of a number of complaints

      at the press conference.  This was also explained in detail.  It

      further alleged that the applicant had not stated the truth when

      he said that he had no other means left than going to the press.

      Yet at that time he had not even attempted to obtain a reply by

      filing a regular remedy with the statutory appeal organs.  He

      could have been expected to proceed in this manner, and

      subsequently he indeed proceeded along these lines.  In respect

      of all these points of view the applicant does not reply with any

      convincing arguments ..."

      "Es trifft zwar zu, dass eine der entsprechenden Rügen, mit

      welcher der Beschwerdeführer eine möglicherweise gängige Praxis

      des Amtsstatthalteramts angefochten hatte, später vom Obergericht

      des Kantons Luzern geschützt wurde.  Entgegen dem Vorbringen des

      Beschwerdeführers hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dies im angefochtenen

      Entscheid jedoch berücksichtigt.  Abgesehen davon erwiesen sich

      die öffentlich erhobenen Vorwürfe, die im übrigen geeignet waren,

      ein hängiges Verfahren zu beeinflussen, nicht als berechtigt. ...

      Weiter hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dem Beschwerdeführer angelastet,

      dass er sich an der Presseorientierung bei mehreren seiner

      Formulierungen im Ton vergriffen habe.  Sie hat dies im einzelnen

      auch begründet.  Sie hat dem Beschwerdeführer ferner insofern

      Wahrheitswidrigkeit vorgeworfen, als er die Anrufung der Presse

      dieser gegenüber als letzten Weg bezeichnet hatte, obwohl er im

      damaligen Zeitpunkt noch nicht einmal versucht hatte, sich auf

      dem ordentlichen Weg bei den gesetzlichen Rechtsmittelinstanzen

      Gehör zu verschaffen.  Dieser Weg, den er nachträglich ja auch

      beschritten hat, war ihm ohne weiteres zumutbar. Gegen alle diese

      Gesichtspunkte bringt der Beschwerdeführer keine überzeugenden

      Argumente vor."

      The Court found that the measure had occurred in the public

interest and that the sanction was proportionate in that it was at the

lower end of the scale of fines.

Relevant domestic law

      According to Section 12 para. 1 of the Statute of the Bar

(Anwaltsgesetz) of the Canton of Lucerne, the Supervisory Board

(Aufsichtsbehörde) may impose disciplinary sanctions on lawyers in

cases of a breach of professional ethics.  Section 13 provides that the

lawyer concerned may be sanctioned with a fine of up to 5,000 SFr or

with suspension from his professional activities.

COMPLAINTS

       The applicant complains, with reference to the Convention

organs' case-law, that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him

breaches his right under Article 10 of the Convention to freedom of

information.  He submits that he merely informed the press that no

written warrant of arrest had been issued; and that the Hochdorf

District Office had put S.'s wife under pressure.  The decision of the

Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne of 30 November 1992 and the

letter of the lawyer St. both confirm that his allegations were largely

correct.  The applicant submits that he remained objective in his

statements.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 11 August 1994 and registered

on 11 October 1994.

      On 29 November 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on

20 February 1996.  The applicant replied on 30 April 1996.

THE LAW

      The applicant complains that the disciplinary sanction imposed

on him breaches his right under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention

to freedom of information.

      Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention 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 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."

      The Government accept that the applicant has exhausted domestic

remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

However, it is contended that the application is manifestly ill-

founded.   Thus, the interference with the applicant's right to freedom

of expression complied with the conditions under Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention.  Thus, the legal basis of the measure

was Article 12 of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne.

Moreover, the interference served the purpose of "the protection of ...

the rights of others" and of "maintaining the authority and

impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 para.

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

      The Government also submit that the measure was "necessary in a

democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention.  Reference is made to the Federal

Court's case-law according to which a public interest may justify

informing the public of a violation of human rights.  However, regard

must thereby be had to the degree of intensity of the alleged

violation, the potential influence on pending proceedings, the

possibility of employing other remedies, and the manner in which the

complaints are presented.

      The Government contend that in the present case both the moment

and the manner of presenting the complaints were badly chosen by the

applicant.  Thus, his statement was resentful and aggressive and, with

one exception, wrong.  It could also have interfered with pending

proceedings.  Moreover, the applicant had not introduced any judicial

remedies before giving his press conference.  Finally, the fine

imposed, 500 SFr, was moderate.

      The applicant contests the Government's submissions.  He contends

that he was prevented from telling journalists what they could write,

although they are entitled to the freedom of information.

      The applicant alleges systematic violations of the Convention by

the Lucerne authorities.  In the present case, the person concerned had

been in custody for six weeks without seeing a judicial officer; he had

also not been represented by a lawyer.  When the applicant eventually

became his lawyer, the wife of the detainee was told that he would

remain in custody as long as he was represented by the applicant.

      The applicant contends that in his press conference he made it

clear that such systematic breaches of human rights could no longer be

tolerated.  There was no other way of proceeding.  A remedy would have

been pointless.

      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.  This aspect of 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, by a majority,

      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