Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14869/89

by Allan Patrick REEVE

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 8 June 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

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 3 March 1989 by

Allan Patrick REEVE against the Netherlands and registered on 5 April

1990 under file No. 14869/89;

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 a British national, born in 1948, and at

present detained in The Hague, the Netherlands. Before the Commission

he is represented by Mr. H.G. Kersting, a lawyer practising in

Amsterdam.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

At fifteen years of age, the applicant apparently committed a

murder in the United Kingdom, for which he was convicted and placed in

Broadmoor Hospital for the criminally insane. Apparently in 1981 he

escaped and made his way to the Netherlands, where, in 1982, he was

arrested for the killing of a police officer. He was convicted of

this charge and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. During his

detention in the United Kingdom he obtained a Bachelor of Arts

degree. In the Netherlands he pursued his studies and obtained a

Master's degree in political science. At some time during his

detention in the Netherlands, the applicant apparently attempted an

escape from prison, together with several other prisoners.

On 24 October 1986, the applicant requested the director of

the prison to allow a filmmaker, Mr. S., to film interviews with the

applicant, for the purpose of making a documentary about his life and

about the general effects of long term imprisonment. The initial

request apparently suggested ten filming sessions of two hours each.

On 18 November 1986, the applicant requested the director of

the prison to allow a newspaper reporter, Mr. O., of "De Waarheid", to

interview him.

The director of the prison apparently refused permission for

both requests.

On 15 December 1986, the applicant complained to the prison's

Complaints Commission of the Supervisory Commission (Beklagcommissie

uit de Commissie van toezicht) against the refusal of the director to

give a decision in writing. Because of complications at the

Complaints Commission, the applicant had to ask the director of the

prison for a new decision and to file a new complaint with the

Complaints Commission.

On 30 June 1988, the Complaints Commission rejected the

applicant's complaint. Regarding the interview with the newspaper

journalist it held, inter alia, that the director's position was not

unreasonable or unfair, as he had agreed to consider an interview

under the rules of the Directive on contacts between individual

detainees and the press (Regeling contacten tussen individuele

gedetineerden en de pers; RCGP), and, furthermore, as the applicant

was free to invite the journalist as a regular visitor, even for

unsupervised visits. The Complaints Commission also considered that

these rules were for the legitimate purpose of maintaining prison

order, and that, therefore, the restrictions were in accordance with

paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention.

As regards the filming sessions, the Complaints Commission

upheld the reasons for refusal given by the director, to which it

added its own considerations. The director had based himself on the

RCGP and had given the following reasons:

a. the filming sessions would be too great a burden

on the prison, also in terms of security arrangements.

b. the public screening of the film could be painful

to the family of the applicant's victim;

c. such a film could damage relations between the

Netherlands and the United Kingdom;

d. the film could violate the character of the

applicant's deprivation of liberty.

The Complaints Commission again considered that the refusal of

permission was in accordance with Article 10 para. 2 of the

Convention.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Appeals

Commission of the Central Council of Criminal Law Application

(Beroepscommissie van de Centrale Raad van Strafrechtstoepassing). He

submitted, inter alia, that filming in prison had taken place on

numerous occasions before and that paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the

Convention only permitted restrictions of the exercise of the right to

freedom of expression, and not a total prohibition.

On 20 September 1988, the Appeals Commission rejected the

appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that, by refusing permission for him

to be interviewed on film and by a newspaper journalist, the prison

authorities violated his right to freedom of expression. He invokes

Article 10 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the refusal of the prison

authorities to allow a television team to make a documentary film on

the applicant and to allow an interview with a newspaper reporter. He

invokes Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the relevant parts of

which provide 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...

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,

... for the prevention of disorder or crime..."

The Commission is of the opinion that the refusal by the

prison authorities to allow an interview and the making of a

filmed documentary may be considered as an interference with the

applicant's right to impart information and ideas under Article 10

para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.

It remains to be examined whether this interference was

justified under para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of that provision.

The Commission notes that the contested measures were taken in

conformity with a prison order, which was based on the Prison Rules.

The Commission is satisfied that the interference was "prescribed by

law". The refusal to allow the interview and the documentary in this

case had the purpose of preventing disorder in prison, which falls

under the legitimate aim of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) "for the

prevention of disorder". In order to establish whether the measure

was "necessary in a democratic society," a balance must be struck

between the interests of society and the interference with the

applicant's right of freedom to impart information.

In respect of the interviews with the newspaper journalist,

the Commission notes that the applicant was free to invite the

journalist during normal visiting hours and that they would be allowed

to talk without supervision. Furthermore, the prison director had

agreed to consider a separate interview facility within the context of

the Prison Rules.

In respect of the filmed interviews, the Commission

acknowledges that the provision of general facilities for such

interviews would create an unreasonable administrative and security

burden for prison administrations.

In the light of these considerations, the Commission considers

that the requisite balance between the applicant's and the prison's

interests has sufficiently been taken into consideration. Therefore,

it can be said that the measures were necessary in a democratic

society for the prevention of disorder within the meaning of Article

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

It follows that the application is 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

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

REEVE v. THE NETHERLANDS

REEVE v. THE NETHERLANDS

LEXI