CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 juin 1990

.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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 14869/89                       by Allan Patrick REEVE                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 June 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                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 3 March 1989 by Allan Patrick REEVE against the Netherlands and registered on 5 April 1990 under file No. 14869/89;           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 a British national, born in 1948, and at present detained in The Hague, the Netherlands.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   H.G. Kersting, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.           The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           At fifteen years of age, the applicant apparently committed a murder in the United Kingdom, for which he was convicted and placed in Broadmoor Hospital for the criminally insane.   Apparently in 1981 he escaped and made his way to the Netherlands, where, in 1982, he was arrested for the killing of a police officer.   He was convicted of this charge and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment.   During his detention in the United Kingdom he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree.   In the Netherlands he pursued his studies and obtained a Master's degree in political science.   At some time during his detention in the Netherlands, the applicant apparently attempted an escape from prison, together with several other prisoners.           On 24 October 1986, the applicant requested the director of the prison to allow a filmmaker, Mr.   S., to film interviews with the applicant, for the purpose of making a documentary about his life and about the general effects of long term imprisonment.   The initial request apparently suggested ten filming sessions of two hours each.           On 18 November 1986, the applicant requested the director of the prison to allow a newspaper reporter, Mr.   O., of "De Waarheid", to interview him.           The director of the prison apparently refused permission for both requests.           On 15 December 1986, the applicant complained to the prison's Complaints Commission of the Supervisory Commission (Beklagcommissie uit de Commissie van toezicht) against the refusal of the director to give a decision in writing.   Because of complications at the Complaints Commission, the applicant had to ask the director of the prison for a new decision and to file a new complaint with the Complaints Commission.           On 30 June 1988, the Complaints Commission rejected the applicant's complaint.   Regarding the interview with the newspaper journalist it held, inter alia, that the director's position was not unreasonable or unfair, as he had agreed to consider an interview under the rules of the Directive on contacts between individual detainees and the press (Regeling contacten tussen individuele gedetineerden en de pers; RCGP), and, furthermore, as the applicant was free to invite the journalist as a regular visitor, even for unsupervised visits.   The Complaints Commission also considered that these rules were for the legitimate purpose of maintaining prison order, and that, therefore, the restrictions were in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention.           As regards the filming sessions, the Complaints Commission upheld the reasons for refusal given by the director, to which it added its own considerations.   The director had based himself on the RCGP and had given the following reasons:           a. the filming sessions would be too great a burden            on the prison, also in terms of security arrangements.           b. the public screening of the film could be painful            to the family of the applicant's victim;           c. such a film could damage relations between the            Netherlands and the United Kingdom;           d. the film could violate the character of the            applicant's deprivation of liberty.           The Complaints Commission again considered that the refusal of permission was in accordance with Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the Appeals Commission of the Central Council of Criminal Law Application (Beroepscommissie van de Centrale Raad van Strafrechtstoepassing).   He submitted, inter alia, that filming in prison had taken place on numerous occasions before and that paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention only permitted restrictions of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and not a total prohibition.           On 20 September 1988, the Appeals Commission rejected the appeal.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that, by refusing permission for him to be interviewed on film and by a newspaper journalist, the prison authorities violated his right to freedom of expression.   He invokes Article 10 of the Convention.   THE LAW           The applicant complains of the refusal of the prison authorities to allow a television team to make a documentary film on the applicant and to allow an interview with a newspaper reporter.   He invokes Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the relevant parts of which provide as follows:   "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...   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,   ... for the prevention of disorder or crime..."           The Commission is of the opinion that the refusal by the prison authorities to allow an interview and the making of a filmed documentary may be considered as an interference with the applicant's right to impart information and ideas under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) 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 measures were taken in conformity with a prison order, which was based on the Prison Rules. The Commission is satisfied that the interference was "prescribed by law".   The refusal to allow the interview and the documentary in this case had the purpose of preventing disorder in prison, which falls under the legitimate aim of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) "for the prevention of disorder".   In order to establish whether the measure was "necessary in a democratic society," a balance must be struck between the interests of society and the interference with the applicant's right of freedom to impart information.           In respect of the interviews with the newspaper journalist, the Commission notes that the applicant was free to invite the journalist during normal visiting hours and that they would be allowed to talk without supervision.   Furthermore, the prison director had agreed to consider a separate interview facility within the context of the Prison Rules.           In respect of the filmed interviews, the Commission acknowledges that the provision of general facilities for such interviews would create an unreasonable administrative and security burden for prison administrations.           In the light of these considerations, the Commission considers that the requisite balance between the applicant's and the prison's interests has sufficiently been taken into consideration.   Therefore, it can be said that the measures were necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.           It follows that the application is 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)