DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR BASIL HALL,

       JOINED BY MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON,A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK AND B. MARXER

1.    I do not share the view of the majority of the Commission that

there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in this case.

2.    In the first place, I have considerable doubt whether the right

to impart information without interference by public authorities is to

be interpreted as including a right to distribute written material on

premises belonging to a public authority without permission first

having been obtained. Even if it did, I would not consider there to

have been a violation of Article 10 for the reasons given below.

3.    Assuming that the withholding of permission to distribute the

military journal "Igel" (in the second applicant's case taking the form

of an order to cease distribution) constituted a restriction on the

applicants' rights, it was, I consider, justified under paragraph 2 of

Article 10.

4.    The restriction was prescribed by law - the Military Act of 1978

and the Service Regulations of the Federal Army of 1979 made under it.

5.    The restriction was, as the Government contends, for the

prevention of disorder. The maintenance of order is particularly

important for armed forces.

6.    The withholding of permission to distribute the journal "Igel"

was "necessary in a democratic society". Contracting States enjoy a

wide margin of appreciation in assessing to need to regulate the

distribution of periodicals in the area of military barracks and

thereby to maintain military discipline and prevent disorder. In this

sphere, the Commission cannot undertake a re-examination of facts and,

more particularly, substitute its own evaluation as to the contents of

a periodical and its likely impact on military order and discipline for

that of the national military authorities.

7.    Bearing in mind that the first applicant is not prevented from

distributing its journal outside the area of military barracks or from

sending it to soldiers on the basis of individual subscriptions, I find

that the prohibition on distribution in the area of military barracks

does not go beyond this margin left to the national authorities.

8.    I therefore conclude that there was no violation of either

applicants' rights under Article 10.

9.    As to the complaints of violation of Article 14 in conjunction

with Article 10 neither applicant has shown that permission was given

for another publication with similar contents to be distributed. There

was therefore no violation of Article 14 for either applicant.

10.   I do not consider that the first applicant has an arguable case

that the association has a right to distribute its journal on military

premises. The second applicant had a remedy for his complaint which he

used. That he was unsuccessful is irrelevant. There was no violation

of Article 13.

                                                         (Or. French)