CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mars 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 March 1986, the following members being present:                           MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                             G. SPERDUTI                             E. BUSUTTIL                             G. JÖRUNDSSON                             G. TENEKIDES                             B. KIERNAN                             A.S. GUZÜBÜYÜK                             A. WEITZEL                             J.C. SOYER                             H.G. SCHERMERS                             J. CAMPINOS                             H. VANDENBERGHE                         Mrs G.H. THUNE                         Sir Basil HALL                           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 11 December 1984 by V.R.U. against the Netherlands and registered on 17 December 1984 under file No. 11308/84;   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 an association (V.R.U.) with its registered office at Utrecht.   In the proceedings before the Commission it is represented by Mrs. Kubatsch, a lawyer practising at Utrecht.   As from 1978, the applicant had weekly office hours by permission of the prison director, and on an apparently experimental basis, at the prison of Utrecht (Huis van Bewaring I), in order to provide the prisoners with certain legal information and to look after their interests on a non-commercial basis.   On 20 September 1982, some prisoners informed members of the applicant association about the circumstances under which a prisoner had committed suicide.   At the request of the prisoners, the applicant asked the Chief Prosecutor (Hoofd Officier van Justitie) to order an inquiry into the circumstances under which the suicide had taken place.   At the request of the prisoners and after permission from the deceased's mother, but without informing the prison authorities, the applicant drafted a press relese which was given to the General Dutch Press Agency (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau).   As a result of this press release, several newspapers published articles about the suicide, in which apparently the blame for the incident was put on the prison authorities.   The applicant's behaviour in this respect appears to have greatly disturbed prison staff which had spent much time and care on the prisoner concerned.   On 8 November 1982, the director of the prison withdrew the applicant's right of access to the prison.   On 28 November 1982, the applicant appealed against this decision to the Council of State's Division for Jurisdiction (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State)   but this appeal was rejected on 14 June 1984. The Council considered, inter alia, that the applicant had failed to respect its agreement with the director of the prison concerning the way in which legal advice and information were to be given and found that this had adversely affected the living conditions in the prison. The Council also attached importance to the fact that the prison director had already taken steps to ensure a continuation of legal assistance in the prison.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that it is deprived of the right to gather and impart information and to express its ideas concerning this information because of the withdrawal of its right to operate in the prison of Utrecht.   The applicant invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained that, because of the withdrawal of its right of access to the prison, it could no longer express certain ideas and has invoked Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention which reads inter alia:   "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;   this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. ...."   The Commission recalls that Article 9 (Art. 9) primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds, i.e. the area which is sometimes called the forum internum.   In addition, it protects acts which are intimately linked to these attitudes such as acts of worship or devotion which are aspects of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognised form.   The Commission, however, finds that although the aims of the applicant association are of an idealistic nature, viz. providing legal advice to prisoners and looking after their interests on a non-commercial basis, it cannot be said that in the present case it exercised the rights contained in Article 9, para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 9-1) either in its own capacity or as a representative of its members (cf. Dec. No. 7805/77, 5.5.79, D.R. 16, p. 60).   This part of the application must, consequently, be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant has further complained that the decision of the prison authorities to withdraw its right of access constituted an unjustified interference with its right to freedom of expression.   The applicant has invoked Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in this respect, which provides that:   "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 responsibiities, 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 notes that the applicant was granted access to the prison concerned on the basis of an agreement between the applicant and the prison director concerning the way in which the former would carry out its activity in prison.   The applicant was not hindered in expressing its opinion to the press, but as this expression was in breach of the agreement with the prison director, it resulted in the termination of the agreement.   The Commission is of the opinion that the termination of the agreement did not restrict the applicant's right to impart information any further than the applicant had accepted when entering into the agreement.   The decision taken by the authorities not to grant the application further permission to operate in prison thus cannot be considered to constitute an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 10, para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   It follows that the remainder of the application must also be rejected as 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   Secrtary to the Commission                  President to the Commission   (H.C. KRÜGER)                                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)