Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16564/90

by W. and K.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 8 April 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

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 24 February

1990 by W. and K. against Switzerland and

registered on 24 February 1990 under file No. 16564/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows:

The first applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1950, is a

businessman residing at K. in Switzerland. The second applicant, a

Swiss citizen born in 1951, is a businessman residing at Seuzach in

Switzerland.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The applicants ran various video rental shops in Switzerland

in which they sold and rented videos. Approximately 5% of the turnover

derived from business in obscene video films.

On 9 October 1986 the Winterthur District Attorney's Office

(Bezirksanwaltschaft) issued a penal order (Strafbefehl) against the

applicants in which they were convicted of the continuous offence of

publishing obscene material contrary to Section 204 of the Swiss Penal

Code (Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch, see below Relevant domestic

law and practice). The applicants were each sentenced to a fine of

5,000 SFr. Each applicant was further ordered to surrender the

illegally obtained profits amounting to 20,000 SFr.

Upon the applicants' objection (Einspruch) the Winterthur

Criminal District Court judge (Einzelrichter in Strafsachen des

Bezirksgerichts) confirmed the penal order on 28 April 1987, though he

reduced the first applicant's fine to 4,000 SFr.

On 10 November 1987 the Court of Appeal (Kantonsgericht) of

the Canton of Zurich confirmed the judgment. The applicants' plea of

nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) was dismissed by the Court of

Cassation (Kassationsgericht) of the Canton of Zurich on 23

February 1989.

The applicants then filed a further plea of nullity which the

Federal Court (Bundesgericht) dismissed on 30 August 1989.

The applicants also filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche

Beschwerde) with the Federal Court, complaining mainly of a breach of

the principle of equal treatment (Gleichbehandlungsgebot). They

claimed that the same films which had led to their conviction could be

obtained in virtually every video shop in Zurich. It was therefore

arbitrary to prosecute only certain persons.

The Federal Court dismissed the public law appeal on 30 August

1989. The decision was served on the applicants on 25 September 1989.

In its decision the Federal Court first considered that in

principle the applicants could invoke the obligation to equal

treatment in the context of illegal acts (Gleichbehandlung im Unrecht;

see below, Relevant domestic law and practice), since

non-intervention by the authorities in such cases proved to be the

rule, the conviction the exception.

The Court further noted the decision of the Zurich Court of

Cassation according to which the authorities in the Canton of Zurich

only prosecuted offences under Section 204 of the Penal Code if a

private charge (private Strafanzeige) was brought. To this the Federal

Court replied:

"Should this mean that even in cases of Section 204 of the

Penal Code, which are generally known also to the

prosecuting authorities, there is no intervention except if

a private person expressly makes a complaint, this would

imply a breach of the obligation to equal treatment derived

from Article 4 of the Federal Constitution. Such a manner

of proceeding would constitute an illegal deviation from the

principle that ex officio offences - to which the offence of

Section 204 belongs - must be prosecuted. Otherwise, due to

the undisputedly frequent contraventions against this

statutory provision and the only exceptionally filed penal

complaints, only some persons committing these offences

would be punished while the majority would go unpunished.

The same applies to a practice of prosecution which

intervenes only upon a penal complaint or if obscene

publications become known by chance, and does not intervene

in numerous other generally known cases. The precise

situation in the Canton of Zurich need not be ascertained

here since nothing points to the supposition that a possibly

illegal practice is being upheld. To the extent that there

is an illegal practice of the Zurich investigation and

prosecution authorities in the investigation and prosecution

of criminal offences according to Section 204 of the Penal

Code, the authorities are requested to abandon such a

practice. The unequal treatment in the concrete case will

be remedied through this request which at least for the

future must entail a practice complying with the law. As a

result, the applicants are not, for reasons of equality,

entitled to a derogation from the law and an acquittal from

the indictment of publishing obscene material."

"Sollte dies so zu verstehen sein, dass selbst in Fällen des

Art. 204 StGB, die allgemein und auch den Strafverfolgungs-

organen bekannt sind, nicht eingeschritten wird, ausser ein

Privater reiche ausdrücklich Strafanzeige ein, so wäre eine

Verletzung des aus Art. 4 BV fliessenden Gleichheitsgebotes

zu bejahen. Ein solches Vorgehen würde eine gesetzwidrige

Abweichung vom Grundsatz darstellen, dass Offizialdelikte -

zu denen der Tatbestand des Art. 204 StGB zählt - in jedem

Falle von Amtes wegen zu verfolgen sind, denn wegen der

unbestrittenermassen häufigen Widerhandlung gegen diese Geset-

zesbestimmung und die nur ausnahmsweise Anzeigeerstattung

würden nur einzelne Täter bestraft, die Mehrheit ginge

jedoch straffrei aus. Das gleiche gilt für eine Strafver-

folgungspraxis, die nur auf Anzeige hin oder bei zufälli-

gerweise konkret bekannt werdenden unzüchtigen Veröffent-

lichungen einschreitet, in sehr zahlreichen anderen

allgemein bekannten Fällen jedoch nicht vorgeht. Es kann

dahingestellt bleiben, wie es sich im Kanton Zürich genau

verhält, weil nichts die Vermutung nahelegt, dort würde eine

allenfals gesetzwidrige Praxis beibehalten. Soweit eine

gesetzwidrige Praxis der Zürcher Untersuchungs- und

Anklagebehörden bei der Untersuchung und Verfolgung von

strafbaren Handlungen gemäss Art. 204 StGB besteht, werden

die Behörden aufgefordert, sie aufzugeben. Die

rechtsungleiche Behandlung im konkreten Fall wird durch

diese Aufforderung, die jedenfalls für die Zukunft eine

gesetzmässige Praxis zur Folge haben muss, behoben, so dass

die Beschwerdeführer keinen Anspruch darauf haben, um der

Rechtsgleichheit willen in Abweichung vom Gesetz von der

Anklage der unzüchtigen Veröffentlichung freigesprochen zu

werden."

Meanwhile the applicants had again sold or rented such

videos. On 9 May 1989 the Bülach District Court convicted the

applicants of the continuous offence of publishing obscene materials

contrary to Section 204 of the Penal Code and sentenced them

to unconditional imprisonment of two weeks. Each applicant was

further ordered to surrender the illegally obtained profits amounting

to 10,000 SFr.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 204 of the Swiss Penal Code provides:

"1. Anyone who makes or has in his possession any writings,

pictures, films or other items which are obscene, with a view

to trading in them, distributing them or displaying them in

public, or who, for the above purposes, imports, transports

or exports such items or puts them into circulation in any

way, or who openly or secretly deals in them or publicly

distributes or displays them or by way of trade supplies

them for hire, or who announces or makes known in any way,

with a view to facilitating such prohibited circulation or

trade, that anyone is engaged in any of the aforesaid

punishable activities, or who announces or makes known how

or through whom such items may be directly or indirectly

procured, shall be imprisoned or fined.

2. Anyone supplying or displaying such items to a person

under the age of 18 shall be imprisoned or fined.

3. The court shall order the destruction of the items."

"1. Wer unzüchtige Schriften, Bilder, Filme oder andere

unzüchtige Gegenstände herstellt oder vorrätig hält, um

damit Handel zu treiben, sie zu verbreiten oder öffentlich

auszustellen, wer solche Gegenstände zu den genannten

Zwecken einführt, befördert oder ausführt oder sonstwie in

Verkehr bringt, wer solche Gegenstände öffentlich oder

geheim verkauft, verbreitet, öffentlich ausstellt oder

gewerbsmässig ausleiht, wer, um die verbotene Verbreitung

oder den verbotenen Vertrieb zu fördern, ankündigt oder

sonstwie bekannt gibt, dass sich eine Person mit den

genannten strafbaren Handlungen befasst, wer ankündigt oder

bekannt gibt, wie und durch wen die genannten Gegenstände

unmittelbar oder mittelbar bezogen werden können, wird mit

Gefängnis oder mit Busse bestraft.

2. Wer solche Gegenstände einer Person unter 18 Jahren

übergibt oder vorzeigt, wird mit Gefängnis oder mit Busse

bestraft.

3. Der Richter lässt die unzüchtigen Gegenstände

vernichten."

According to the Federal Court's case-law (see Arrêts du

Tribunal fédéral suisse 108 Ia 212) the principle of the legality of

administration (Gesetzmässigkeit der Verwaltung) takes priority over

the principle of the equal application of the law. The fact that in

certain other cases a law has not, or not properly, been applied does

not grant to an individual the right that also in his case the law

shall not be applied.

If, however, the authorities refuse to abandon their illegal

practice in the other cases, the individual may request that he too shall

benefit from the illegal preferential treatment granted to the third

person. In such a case the interest of the individual in an equal

treatment overrides the interest in the legality of administration.

The Federal Court has derived this so-called obligation to

equal treatment in the context of illegal acts (Gleichbehandlung

im Unrecht) from the principle of equality enshrined in Article 4 of

the Federal Constitution.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that in Switzerland, in particular in

the Canton of Zurich, a large number of video film rentals such as

the ones which the applicants engaged in are not prosecuted. By

arbitrarily prosecuting the applicants but not the other persons, the

Swiss authorities have, in the applicants' opinion, breached Article 10

of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicants complain of having been arbitrarily prosecuted

for publishing obscene material. They invoke Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention which 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 Commission considers that the applicants' conviction on

the basis of Section 204 of the Swiss Penal Code for renting or

selling obscene video films constitutes an interference with the

applicants' right under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention "to impart

information and ideas without interference by public authority". The

Commission must therefore examine whether the interference is justified

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

When convicting the applicants for renting or selling obscene

material the Swiss courts relied on Section 204 of the Swiss Penal

Code. The measure was, therefore, "prescribed by law" within the

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

Commission furthermore considers that the interference at issue was

justified "for the protection of ... morals" within the meaning of

this provision.

Finally, the Commission must examine whether the interference

was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article

10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. This notion implies that

the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and that it is

proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Eur. Court H.R.,

Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A No. 90, p. 24 et seq.,

para. 55).

In the Commission's opinion, there can be no doubt that under

normal circumstances the applicants' conviction for renting or selling

the video films at issue would correspond to a pressing social need

and would be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued within the

meaning of the Convention organs' case-law.

Referring to the circumstances of the present case, the

applicants point out, however, that in the Canton of Zurich a large

number of video film rentals, such as the ones which the applicants

engaged in, are not prosecuted.

In the Commission's opinion the applicants have failed to

demonstrate that their prosecution and conviction stemmed from a

specific ground of discrimination stated in Article 14 (Art. 14) of

the Convention, such as sex, race, colour, language or other.

It follows that the interference at issue was necessary in a

deomcratic society within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the

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

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

W. ; K. v. SWITZERLAND

W. ; K. v. SWITZERLAND

LEXI