CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 octobre 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 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)