CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 21 mai 1992

.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 }      Application No. 13308/87                               Otmar CHORHERR                                   against                                   AUSTRIA                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 21 May 1992)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    page   I.     INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2       (paras. 1-14)         A.   The application (paras. 2-3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.   The proceedings (paras. 4-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2         C.   The present Report (paras. 11-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 15-23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9         A.   Particular circumstances of the case       (paras. 15-22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7         B.   Relevant domestic law       (para. 23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 24-52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-16         A.   Complaints declared admissible (para. 24) . . . . . . . .10         B.   Points at issue (para. 25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10         C.   Article 5 of the Convention       (paras. 26-36). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-13              a.   Compliance with Article 5 of the Convention            (paras. 26-35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-13              b.   Conclusion (para. 36). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13         D.   Article 10 of the Convention (paras. 37-50) . . . . . 13-16              a.   Compliance with Article 10 of the Convention            (paras. 37-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-16              b.   Conclusion (para. 50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16         E.   Recapitulation (paras. 51-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16   SEPARATE OPINION of Mrs. Liddy and Mr. Pellonpää. . . . . . . . . .17   DISSENTING OPINION of Mr. Danelius joined by                       MM. Jörundsson, Soyer, Weitzel,                       Sir Basil Hall, MM. Martinez and Geus . . . .18   DISSENTING OPINION of Mr. Loucaides, joined by                       Mr. Busuttil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20   APPENDIX I   History of the proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21   APPENDIX II Decision on the admissibility             of the application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-26   I.      INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant, Otmar Chorherr, is an Austrian citizen born in 1961.   He lives in Vienna and was represented before the Commission by Mr. T. Höhne, lawyer, of Vienna.         The application is directed against Austria whose Government were represented by their Agent, Ambassador Helmut Türk, Head of the International Law Department of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.   3.     The case concerns the applicant's arrest and detention in connection with a military parade which took place on 26 October 1985. It raises issues under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   4.     The application was introduced on 14 July 1987 and registered on 17 September 1987.   6.     On 4 September 1989, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure (former version), that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that they should be invited to present their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.         The Government sent their written observations on 15 December 1989.   The applicant submitted written observations in reply on 26 February 1990.   Further submissions were submitted on 3 August 1990.   7.     The President of the Commission granted the applicant legal aid on 16 February 1990.         On 3 December 1990, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 50 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the parties to make further submissions at a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.         At the hearing, which was held on 1 March 1991, the applicant was represented by Mr. Höhne and Mrs. M. Langtaler, adviser.    The Government were represented by Ambassador Türk and by Mr. S Rosenmayr, adviser.   8.     On 1 March 1991, the Commission declared the application partly admissible and partly inadmissible.   9.     The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application and to furnish specified factual information.   The applicant submitted factual information on 5 April 1991, and the respondent Government submitted factual information and additional observations on 24 April 1991.   The applicant replied to the Government's additional observations on 14 June 1991.   10.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   11.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                MM.   S. TRECHSEL, Acting President                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs. J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.C. GEUS                   M. PELLONPÄÄ         The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 21 May 1992 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is         1)   to establish the facts, and         2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   13.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as APPENDIX II.   14.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     Particular circumstances of the case   15.    On 26 October 1985 a swearing-in ceremony and military parade were held on the Rathausplatz in Vienna to celebrate thirty years of Austrian neutrality and the passage of forty years since the end of the second World War.   The swearing-in ceremony, which took place from 11.00 hours until approximately 11.25 hours, involved some twelve hundred conscripts of the Austrian army.   The subsequent military parade, which began at 11.35 hours, involved the passing by of 103 tracked vehicles, 259 other vehicles and 2,600 soldiers.   A large number of civilian and military dignitaries was present on the official dais.   Some 50,000 spectators were gathered on the Rathausplatz.   The military parade ended at about 13.00 hours.   16.    The applicant and a friend had been distributing leaflets in other areas of the centre of Vienna.   The leaflets contained details of a campaign to call for a referendum against the purchase of interceptor fighter jets ("Volksbegehren für eine Volksabstimmung gegen Abfangjäger").   Both men wore rucksacks to which were attached posters, enlargements of the leaflets, bearing the motto "Austria needs no interceptor fighter jets" ("Österreich braucht keine Abfangjäger"). The posters measured about 50 x 70cm and were some 50cm taller than the men.   At 11.15 hours, after two police officers had come to the place where the applicant was distributing his leaflets, the applicant and his friend were arrested (festgenommen).   17.    According to the findings of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) in its decision of 28 November 1986:         (Translation)         "Due to the actions of the two men the crowd became       agitated, one of the reasons being that they felt their       view was impaired.   The officers asked the men to finish       their demonstration, which was disturbing the peace.       However, the men refused to do this and referred to the       right to freedom of expression, to which, in their opinion,       they were entitled.   A debate, which became more and more       heated, then ensued between the two men and the crowd.         When the appellant and his companion did not cease their       actions in spite of being cautioned once more, at       11.15 hours Inspector Singer told the appellant and his       companion that they were under arrest.   The two men were       taken to the Central District Police Inspectorate. ...         These observations are based on the information laid by the       security police and the reliable statements made by the       officers Singer and Chlad.   The claim made by the appellant       that no one had become annoyed at his conduct and that he       had not been cautioned by the officers is, under the       circumstances, unlikely.   Most of those present had, after       all, come along to watch the military parade and they were       partly impeded in this endeavour."   18.    The Attorney General's Department (Finanzprokuratur), representing the police, had submitted a statement to the Constitutional Court summarising the facts as follows:         (Translation)         "[The applicant and his friend] referred to their rights as       citizens entitled to free speech and asked the officers to       give reasons for their action.   This led to a debate       between the two men, the two inspectors and a number of       spectators, which gradually began to become emotionally       charged.         While this was still taking place, members of the special       police task force, which had in the meantime been alerted,       arrived on the scene.   Officer Schadwasser explained to the       men that the nature of their conduct was that of a       demonstration and that they were accordingly holding an       assembly that had not been registered with the police.       They therefore asked them to take down the posters from the       rucksacks and to leave the Rathausplatz.   Strong protests       were already being made from within the crowd against them;       some 'hot-heads' even threatened to hit them.         The two men were obviously less concerned with collecting       signatures for the referendum on the interceptor jets than       taking a public stand against the army at a large-scale       ceremony."   19.    The applicant states, as he submitted throughout the domestic proceedings, that there was at no time an objection to his behaviour from other spectators.   20.    The applicant produced proof of his identity on arrival at the police station.   He was formally arrested (in den Arrest abgegeben) at 11.35 hours.         At 14.15 hours, that is, after the military parade had ended and after a search had been made to see whether the applicant had a criminal record, the applicant was questioned about allegations of making noise and causing disturbance.   He denied either offence, maintaining that if he had been told that he was committing administrative offences, he would have stopped distributing leaflets and taken down his poster.   He was released at 14.40 hours.   21.    The Constitutional Court, in its decision of 28 November 1986, rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint (Beschwerde) in which he invoked inter alia his rights under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention.   The Constitutional Court accepted that both the applicant's arrest and the order to remove the poster and to stop distributing leaflets amounted to the exercise of direct administrative authority and coercion (Ausübung unmittelbarer verwaltungsbehördlicher Befehls- und Zwangsgewalt) which could be challenged before the Constitutional Court.   However, the Court continued:         (Translation)         "Section 4 of the Law for the Protection of Personal       Freedom (Reich Law Gazette 87/1862), which Article 8 of the       Basic Constitutional Act declares to be part of that Act       and which under Article 149 para. 1 of the Federal       Constitutional Law has the status of a constitutional law,       lays down that the organs upholding public order and       entitled to apprehend a person (and this includes the       security police) may take a person into custody in those       specific cases determined by the law.         Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Offences 1950 is       such a law, but in all the cases mentioned in which this       legal rule can be applied (paragraphs a to c) a       pre-requisite for the arrest of a person by an officer of       the public security service (for example an officer of the       security police) is that that person is caught 'in the       act', i.e. that they commit a criminal offence which is       punishable under administrative law and are caught       committing that offence, whereby the first of these two       pre-requisites is met when the officer has good reason to       presume that an administrative offence will be committed.         However, under Article 35 (c) of the Code of Administrative       Offences 1950, an arrest under the conditions described       above, for the purposes of bringing before the authorities       the person who has been caught in the act, is only allowed       when that person, in spite of being cautioned, continues to       commit the punishable offence or attempts to repeat it.         Under Section IX subsection 1 (1) of the Administrative       Procedure Acts a person commits an administrative offence       who behaves in a way liable to cause annoyance and disturbs       the peace in public places.         In the light of the facts described above the security       police had good reason to assume that the (cautioned)       appellant had committed an administrative offence under the       legal provision just cited.   Since it was justified to       consider the appellant's conduct to be an administrative       offence and since as a result of the fact that he was       caught in the act and continued to commit the punishable       offence, in spite of being cautioned, there were grounds       for arresting him under Article 35 (c) of the Code of       Administrative Offences, the reason given for the arrest,       whose legality is being challenged - and this arrest was       pertinently described in the information laid - did       correspond to the law (cf., for example, Official       Collection of Constitutional Court Decisions 10.246/1984).         The detention of the appellant following his (lawful)       arrest because he continued to commit the punishable       offence was also legal: under Section 36 para. 1 (first       sentence) of the Code of Administrative Offences the person       arrested in order to be brought before the authorities       shall be released if the ground for his arrest no longer       applies.   However, if the arrest itself has the effect of       rendering the ground invalid, i.e. if the person arrested       while continuing to commit a punishable offence ceases his       action as a result of the arrest, this rule of law shall       not be applied literally.   Rather, the person arrested       shall - in conformity with the spirit of the law - only be       released early if, due to special circumstances, it becomes       apparent that he will not resume his criminal behaviour in       the event of being released (cf. Official Collection of       Constitutional Court Decisions 9368/1982 and previous court       decisions cited there).         No grounds have been found for believing that such special       circumstances obtain in this case.         As the above remarks show, the pre-requisites existed for       the arrest and subsequent detention of the appellant under       Article 35 (c) of the Code of Administrative Offences.   The       appellant's right to personal freedom guaranteed under the       constitution has accordingly not been violated.         [..]   With respect to the orders given to remove the       posters and cease distributing leaflets:         The police actions which are being challenged did not       violate the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under       the constitution, because their intention was not to       restrict this right but - within the framework of the law       (Section IX Subsection 1 (1) of the Introductory Provisions       to the Administrative Procedure Acts 1950) - to put an end       to the behaviour, which was disturbing public order (cf.,       for example, the decision of the Constitutional Court of       19 June 1986 under B 81,86,89,90/85).   It was not a       question of preventing the appellant from expressing his       opinion but of putting an end to his demonstration, which       was causing a disturbance."         (German)         "Das Gesetz zum Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit, RGB1.       87/1862, das gemäß Art. 8 StGG zum Bestandteil dieses       Gesetzes erklärt ist und gemäß Art. 149 Abs. 1 B-VG als       Verfassungsgesetz gilt, legt in seinem § 4 fest, daß die       zur Anhaltung berechtigten Organe der öffentlichen Gewalt       (dazu zählen die SWB) in den vom Gesetz bestimmten Fällen       eine Person in Verwahrung nehmen dürfen.         § 35 VStG 1950 ist ein solches Gesetz, doch setzt die       Festnahme durch ein Organ des öffentlichen       Sicherheitsdienstes (etwa durch einen SWB) in allen in       dieser Gesetzesvorschrift angeführten (Anwendungs-) Fällen       (lit. a bis c) voraus, daß die festzunehmende Person 'auf       frischer Tat' betreten wird:   daß die sich also eine als       Vewaltungsübertretung strafbaren Handlung zuschulden kommen       lassen und bei Begehung dieser Tat angetroffen werden,       wobei die erste dieser beiden Voraussetzungen bereits dann       erfüllt ist, wenn das Organ die Verübung einer       Verwaltungsübertretung mit gutem Grund annehmen konnte.         Gemäß § 35 lit. c VStG 1950 ist eine Festnahme unter den       soeben umschriebenen Bedingungen zum Zwecke der Vorführung       vor die Behörde aber nur dann gestattet, wenn der Betretene       trotz Abmahnung in der Fortsetzung der strafbaren Handlung       verharrt oder sie zu wiederholen sucht.         Nach Art. IX Abs. 1 Z 1 EGVG 1950 begeht eine       Verwaltungsübertretung, wer durch ein Verhalten, das       Ärgernis zu erregen geeignet ist, die Ordnung an       öffentlichen Orten stört.       Im Hinblick auf die [oben] geschilderte Sachlage durften       die SWB durchaus mit gutem Grund annehmen, daß der       (abgemahnte) Beschwerdeführer eine Verwaltungsübertretung       nach der soeben zitierten Gesetzesbestimmung begangen habe.       War aber die Beurteilung des Verhaltens des       Beschwerdeführers als Verwaltungsdelikt vertretbar und lag       - wie hier - infolge Betretens auf frischer Tat und       Verharrens in der strafbaren Handlung trotz Abmahnung der -       in der Anzeige der Sache nach zutreffend umschriebene -       Festnehmungsgrund des § 35 lit. c VStG 1950 vor, so       entsprach die bekämpfte Festnehmung dem Gesetz (vgl. zB       VfSlg. 10.246/1984).         Die im Anschluß an die - im Gesetz gedeckte - wegen       Verharrens in der strafbaren Handlung ausgesprochene -       Festnahme des Beschwerdeführers erfolgte Anhaltung war       ebenfalls rechtmäßig: Gemäß § 36 Abs 1 erster Satz VStG       1950 ist der zum Zweck der Vorführung vor die zuständige       Behörde Festgenommene freizulassen, wenn der Grund zur       Festnahme schon vorher entfällt.   Wenn aber bereits die       Festnahme selbst bewirkt, daß der Grund der Festnahme       entfällt, wenn also die wegen Verharrens im strafbaren       Verhalten festgenommene Person dieses Verhalten gerade       infolge der Festnahme einstellt, ist diese Rechtsregel       nicht wörtlich anzuwenden.   Vielmehr ist - dem Sinn des       Gesetzes entsprechend - der Festgenommene nur dann       vorzeitig zu enthaften, wenn aufgrund besonderer Umstände       augenfällig wird, daß er im Fall der Freilassung sein       strafbares Verhalten nicht wieder aufnehmen wird (vgl.       VfSlg. 9368/1982 und die dort zitierte weitere       Vorjudikatur).         Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß derartige besondere Umstände in       diesem Fall vorliegen, haben sich nicht ergeben.         Wie sich aus den vorstehenden Ausführungen ergibt, waren       die Voraussetzungen für die Festnahme und die nachfolgende       Anhaltung des Beschwerdeführers nach § 35 lit. c VStG 1950       gegeben.   Der Beschwerdeführer ist demnach durch diese       Maßnahmen im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht       auf persönliche Freiheit nicht verletzt worden.         [..]   Zu den Befehlen, Plakate zu entfernen und das       Flugzettelverteilen einzustellen:         In das verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleistete Recht auf       Meinungsfreiheit wurde durch diese bekämpften       Amtshandlungen überhaupt nicht eingegriffen, weil diese       intentional nicht auf eine Einschränkung dieses Rechtes,       sondern - im Rahmen des Gesetzes (Art. IX Abs. I Z 1 EGVG)       -, darauf gerichtet waren, das ordnungsstörende Verhalten       des Beschwerdeführers zu beenden (vgl.   zB VfGH 19.6.1986       B 81,86,89,90/85).   Es ging hier nicht darum, den       Beschwerdeführer zu hindern, seine Meinung zu äußern,       sondern darum, seine störenden Demonstrationsaktionen       abzustellen."   22.    In subsequent administrative criminal proceedings the applicant was finally fined 700 AS for causing a disturbance by blocking spectators' view of the proceedings, contrary to Section IX of the Introductory Provisions (see Annex II).   B.     Relevant domestic law   23.    (Translation)   Publication of 23 May 1950 by the Federal Government of the Re-statement of Legal Provisions concerning Administrative Proceedings (Federal Gazette No. 172/1950).         Introductory Provisions to the Administrative Procedure Acts         Section VIII         "Anyone who ... offends public decency or causes excessive       noise which disturbs others commits an administrative       offence."         Section IX         "Anyone whose   ... behaviour is likely to cause annoyance and       who disturbs the peace in public places ... commits an       administrative offence."         Code of Administrative Offences         Part II: Administrative Criminal Proceedings       ...         Detention and Arrest         Article 35.         "The organs of the public security service may, apart       from those cases regulated by special legal provisions,       arrest persons caught in the act of committing an offence       for the purpose of bringing them before the authorities when       ...       c) the person caught continues to commit the punishable       offence, in spite of being cautioned, or attempts to repeat       it."         Article 36.         "Every detained person shall be brought without delay to the       relevant competent authority or, if the reason for the detention       falls away earlier, shall be released."   (German)   Kundmachung der Bundesregierung vom 23. Mai 1950 über die Wiederverlautbarung von Rechtsvorschriften auf dem Gebiet des Verwaltungsverfahrens.         Einführungsgesetz zu den Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetzen         Artikel VIII         "Wer ... den öffentlichen Anstand verletzt oder       ungebührlicherweise störenden Lärm erregt, begeht eine       Verwaltungsübertretung ..."         Artikel IX         "Wer ...   durch ein Verhalten, das Ärgernis zu erregen geeignet       ist, die Ordnung an öffentlichen Orten stört, ... begeht eine       Verwaltungübertretung."         Teil II: Verwaltungsstrafverfahren       ...       Festnehmung         § 35.       "Die Organe des öffentlichen Sicherheitsdienstes dürfen außer den       gesetzlich besonders geregelten Fällen Personen, die auf frischer       Tat betreten werden, zum Zweck ihrer Vorführung vor die Behörde       festnehmen, wenn       ...       c) der Betretene trotz Abmahnung in der Fortsetzung der       strafbaren Handlung verharrt oder sie zu wiederholen sucht."         §36.       "(1)   Jeder Festgenommene ist unverzüglich der nächsten sachlich       zuständigen Behörde zu übergeben, oder aber, wenn der Grund der       Festnehmung schon vorher wegfällt, freizulassen ..."   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaints declared admissible   24.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints that his arrest and detention on 26 November 1985 were in violation of his rights to freedom and security of person and constituted an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression.   B.     Points at issue   25.    Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention by virtue of the applicant's arrest and detention;   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect of the order to stop distributing leaflets and to put away the poster, and the subsequent detention.   C.     Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention         a.   Compliance with Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention   26.    The applicant complains that there was no genuine reason for his detention, and that Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention was violated. The Government consider that the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention covers the applicant's detention, and that, in any event, the detention was justified under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.         Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of       person.   No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in       the following cases and in accordance with a procedure       prescribed by law:         ...         c.    the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the       purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on       reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it       is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an       offence or fleeing after having done so;       ..."         The Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention provides as follows:         "The provisions of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention       shall be so applied that there shall be no interference       with measures for the deprivation of liberty prescribed in       the laws on administrative procedure, BGBl.   No. 172/1950,       subject to review by the Administrative Court or the       Constitutional Court as provided for in the Austrian       Federal Constitution."         The applicant considers that the aim of the reservation is to substitute the Austrian system of judicial review for that which would otherwise be required by the Convention, but that the core of Article 5 (Art. 5) remains unaffected.   27.    The Commission must first assess the validity and applicability of the Austrian reservation in the present case by reference to Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Belilos judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 24, para. 50). Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention provides as follows:         "1.   Any State may, when signing this Convention or when       depositing its instrument of ratification, make a       reservation in respect of any particular provision of the       Convention to the extent that any law then in force in its       territory is not in conformity with the provision.       Reservations of a general character shall not be permitted       under this Article.         2.   Any reservation made under this Article shall contain       a brief statement of the law concerned."   If the reservation is to apply to the applicant's detention in the present case, it must satisfy each limb of Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention.   28.         i)     "in respect of any particular provision of the                  Convention"         Only Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention is at issue in the present case, and the Austrian reservation refers expressly to that provision.   This requirement of Article 64 (Art. 64) has accordingly been satisfied.   29.         ii)    "to the extent that any law then in force                  in its territory is not in conformity                  with the provision"         The applicant's detention was effected by reference to Articles 35(c) and 36 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz) in conjunction with Sections VIII and IX of the Introductory Provisions to the Administrative Procedure Acts (Einführungsgesetz zu den Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetzen).   Each of these provisions was in force on 3 September 1958, the date of the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.         Accordingly, this requirement of Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention has also been complied with.   30.         iii)   "reservations of a general character shall                  not be permitted"         The Commission recalls that by excluding any "reservation of a general character" Article 64 (Art. 64) aims at the prohibition of reservations "couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and scope" (cf. Belilos judgment loc. cit., p. 26, para. 55).   31.    The Commission has considered the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) on a number of occasions (cf. No. 8998/80, Dec. 3.3.83, D.R. 32, p. 150 with further references;   No. 13816/88, Dec. 16.10.91).   The earlier case-law, however, must now be reviewed in the light of the finding of the European Court of Human Rights as to the validity of the Swiss interpretative declaration in the case of Belilos (cf. above-mentioned Belilos judgment).         The Commission recalls that the laws on administrative procedure referred to in the Federal Gazette No. 172/1950 created a comprehensive system of administrative law.   Within this system the Introductory Provisions create certain offences, the proceedings for which are governed by the Code of Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) and the Code of Administrative Offences (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz).         The system created by the laws on administrative procedure also provided for certain types of "measures for the deprivation of liberty".   These are, apart from the "preventive measures" in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the penalties of principal arrest (Primärstrafe, Primärarrest) and substitute penalties (Ersatzstrafe, Ersatzarrest).   32.    The Commission finds that the wording of the Austrian reservation provides for the exclusion from the operation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention of a clearly defined set of cases which cannot be said to amount to a reservation "of a general character".   This requirement of Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention has accordingly also been complied with.              iv)    "shall contain a brief statement of the                  law concerned"   33.    The European Court of Human Rights in the Belilos case, agreeing with the Commission that the purpose of Article 64 para. 2 (Art. 64-2) was to enable all concerned to acquaint themselves with legislation excluded from the scope of the Convention, added that the purpose of the " brief statement of the law" constituted an evidential factor and contributed to legal certainty (Belilos judgment loc. cit., p. 27, paras. 58 and 59).   34.    If the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention is to provide a guarantee that it "does not go beyond the provisions expressly excluded by the State concerned" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Weber judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 19, para. 38, with reference to the Belilos judgment), the brief statement of the law supplied must be sufficient to enable the Convention organs to determine whether the provision at issue falls within the scope of the reservation.    The applicant was detained under Article 35(c) of the Code of Administrative Offences, which was found applicable because he had been caught in the act of committing two administrative offences under the Introductory Provisions to the Administrative Procedure Acts. The Commission is satisfied that a "brief statement" of the law concerned - Article 35(c) of the Code of Administrative Offences together with Sections VIII and IX of the Introductory Provisions to the Administrative Procedure Acts - was supplied by the phrase "measures for the deprivation of liberty prescribed in the laws on administrative procedure, BGBl. No. 172/1950", such that this limb of Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention has also been complied with in the present case.   35.    It follows, as each of the requirements of Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention has been complied with, that the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention is valid and applies in the present case, and that therefore the applicant's detention does not fall to be examined under that provision.         b.   Conclusion   36.    The Commission concludes, by 12 votes to 2, that there has been no breach of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.   D.     Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention         a.   Compliance with Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   37.    The applicant complains that the order to stop distributing leaflets, to put away his poster and his subsequent detention violated Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   The Government consider that any interference with the applicant's freedom of expression pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and was proportionate to that aim as the applicant would have maintained his behaviour had he not been arrested, and the solemn swearing-in of soldiers and subsequent military parade would have been further disrupted.   They emphasise that the applicant chose to go to a place where a military celebration and ceremony were taking place and he was therefore courting attention.         The Commission notes that the applicant was not merely penalised after the event for expressing himself by means of his poster and his leaflets, but he was forcibly and physically prevented from so doing by being removed from the Rathausplatz and detained for some three hours, even after the military ceremony had terminated.   The Commission finds that the behaviour of the authorities amounted to a clear interference with his freedom of expression.         The applicant did not contend that the interference with his freedom of expression was not "prescribed by law".   Notwithstanding the somewhat general nature of the offences under Sections VIII and IX of the Introductory Provisions, the Commission finds that the interference was "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R. Ezelin judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 202, p. 21, para. 45).   38.    The Commission accepts that the aim of the interference was to prevent disorder at the swearing-in ceremony and subsequent parade.   39.    The key question in the present case is whether the interference complained of can be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society". With regard to this issue, the European Court of Human Rights has set out the following major principles:         "(a)   Freedom of expression constitutes one of the       essential foundations of a democratic society;   subject to