Search
document

Document text Analytics

R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11720/85 • ECHR ID: 001-597

Document date: October 16, 1986

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

R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11720/85 • ECHR ID: 001-597

Document date: October 16, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 October 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

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

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 22 August 1985 by

M. R. against the Netherlands and registered on 26 August 1985

under file No. 11720/85;

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 facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant may

be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1964 and resident at

Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by

Mr. E. Hummels, a lawyer practising at Utrecht.

It appears that on 15 January 1985 certain newspapers, periodicals and

books were brought to the prison of Utrecht for the applicant, who was

detained there at the time. The newspapers and periodicals were not,

however, given to the applicant but stored on the basis of a prison

order of 1 January 1985 which provided that newspapers and periodicals

were exclusively to be obtained either directly from the publishers or

from the prison shop.

This prison order was based on Section 55 of the General Prison Rules

which, in turn, are based on the Prison Act (Beginselenwet

Gevangeniswezen)(Huishoudelijk Reglement Huizen van Bewaring).

The applicant, thereupon, appealed to the Complaints Commission of the

Supervisory Committee of Utrecht prison (Beklag- commissie van de

Commissie van Toezicht), whilst invoking, inter alia, Article 10

(art. 10) of the Convention.

On 18 March 1985, the Complaints Commission rejected the applicant's

complaint in so far as it related to the newspapers and periodicals,

but declared the complaint concerning the applicant's books

well-founded. The Complaints Commission considered, inter alia, that

the interference which the applicant's rights under Article 10

(art. 10) of the Convention was justified since a prisoner could also

receive information from radio and television. In addition, the

measure was aimed at preventing contraband being smuggled into prison,

which was a major priority aim. The financial position of the

applicant only had subsidiary importance in this respect.

The applicant then appealed against this decision to the Appeals

Commission of the Central Advisory Council for Prisons, Psychopathic

Care and Probation (Beroepscommissie van de Centrale Raad van Advies

voor het gevangeniswezen, de psychopatenzorg en de reclassering).

However, on 17 June 1985, the Appeals Commission rejected the

applicant's appeal, since the interference with the applicant's rights

under Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention was considered to be

justified under the second paragraph of that provision for maintaining

order in prison. The Appeals Commission was satisfied that a more

liberal policy would lead to an influx of goods which was difficult to

control. Moreover, it considered that the applicant could still

exercise his rights by obtaining the information required from the

publishers or the prison shop.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his right to receive information was made

illusory by the directors of Utrecht prison. He claims that he does

not have the means to order the desired information from the

publishers, and that the prison shop only offers a limited selection.

The applicant invokes Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that his right to receive information was

violated contrary to Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention which

provides:

"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 is of the opinion that the refusal by the prison

authorities to forward certain newspapers and periodicals to the

applicant must be considered as an interference with the latter's

right to receive information under Article 10 (art. 10) 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 measure was taken in

conformity with a prison order, which was in itself based on the

Prison Rules. The interference was thus prescribed by law. Moreover,

the Commission accepts the reasons given for the interference by the

Appeals Commission in its decision of 17 June 1985, and is satisfied

that the measure was necessary for the prevention of disorder in

prison. The Commission has also had regard to the alternative ways in

which the applicant could obtain the required information, and finds

that the measure complained of was not disproportionate to the aim

sought to be realised.

Consequently, the Commission finds that the interference was justified

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

It follows that the application must be rejected as being 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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant