JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES FOIGHEL AND LOIZOU

Our only point of disagreement with the view of the majority is that we are of the opinion that the interference with the applicant ’ s right of expression safeguarded by Article 10 (art. 10) was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly such interference was not necessary in a democratic society.

It seems to us that the impairment of the spectators ’ view which was one of the actions of the applicant that made the crowd agitated could have been remedied by several other measures, in the circumstances, than resorting to the extreme measures of arrest and detention. Nor was it necessary to keep him in custody for about an hour and a half after the end of the ceremony, that is after the reason for his arrest had ceased to exist.

[*]  The case is numbered 22/1992/367/441.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: at the time Austria made the reservation referred to in the next paragraph, this section was numbered VII.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 266-B of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.

[*]  See in this connection Paul Reuter, "Introduction au droit des traités", Paris, PUF, 1972-85, nos. 132-133, pp. 74-75.