CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 janvier 1993

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 17116/90                                     S.                                   against                                 SWITZERLAND                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 14 January 1993)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1 - 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2 -4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5 - 10). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 11 - 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 16 - 47). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 16 - 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              a)     Proceedings before the Zurich District Court                  (paras. 18 - 23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              b)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Appeal                  (paras. 24 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4              c)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Cassation                  (para. 28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              d)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Appeal                  (para. 29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              e)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Cassation                  (paras. 30 - 33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              f)     Proceedings before the Federal Court                  (paras. 34 - 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7              g)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Cassation                  (paras. 40 - 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              h)     Proceedings before the Federal Court                  (paras. 42 - 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8         B.    Relevant domestic law and practice            (paras. 44 - 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9              a)     Section 204 of the Swiss Penal Code                  (paras. 44 - 46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9              b)     Remedies to the Federal Court                  (para. 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10   III.        OPINION OF THE COMMISSION            (paras. 48 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11              A.     Complaints declared admissible                  (para. 48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11              B. Points at issue                  (para. 49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11              C.     Article 10 of the Convention                  (paras. 50 - 67) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11                    a)   Interference with the applicant's right                        (paras. 53 - 54) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    b)   Legal basis for the interference                        (para. 55) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    c)   Aim of the interference                        (para. 56) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    d)   Necessity of the interference                        (paras. 57 - 66) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    Conclusion                  (para. 67) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14              D.     Article 8 of the Convention                  (paras. 68 - 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14                    Conclusion                  (para. 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14              E.     Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                  (paras. 72 - 96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    a)    Period to be considered                       (paras. 74 - 79). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    b)    Relevant criteria                       (paras. 80 - 82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                    c)    Complexity of the case                       (paras. 83 - 84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16                    d)    Applicant's conduct                       (paras. 85 - 88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16                    e)    Conduct of the authorities                       (paras. 89 - 95). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17                    Conclusion                  (para. 96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17              F.     Recapitulation                  (paras. 97 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17   DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. E. BUSUTTIL, JOINED BY Mr. A. WEITZEL AND Mrs. J. LIDDY AS REGARDS ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION . . . . .18   APPENDIX I        :     HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. . . . . . . . . .20   APPENDIX II       :     DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY . . . . . . . .21   APPENDIX III      :     CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE PUBLISHING                       OF OBSCENE MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . .37   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, a Swiss citizen born in 1950, is a businessman residing in Zurich.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. L.A. Minelli, a lawyer practising at Forch in Switzerland.   3.     The application is directed against Switzerland.   The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. O. Jacot-Guillarmod, Deputy Director of the Federal Office of Justice, and their Deputy Agent, Mr. Ph. Boillat, Head of the European Law and International Affairs Section of the Federal Office of Justice.   4.     The application concerns the applicant's complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him; and that his conviction for showing a film breached his right to respect for private life and to freedom of expression within the meaning of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, respectively.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 6 August 1990 and registered on 4 September 1990.   6.     On 27 May 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.     The Government's observations were received by letter dated 7 September 1991 and the applicant's observations by letter dated 10 October 1991.   8.     On 11 May 1992 the Commission declared the application admissible insofar as it related to the applicant's complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings, and his complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention about his criminal conviction for showing a film.   The remaining complaints were declared inadmissible.   9.     In additional observations of 10 July 1992 the Government submitted that the applicant had not complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention, but the Commission found no basis for applying Article 29 of the Convention.   10.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a 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, the following members being present:              MM.    C. A. NØRGAARD, President                  J. A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M. P. PELLONPÄÄ   12.    The text of this Report was adopted on 14 January 1993 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   13.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)     to establish the facts, and   ii)    to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a       breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the       Convention.   14.    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.   15.    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.     The particular circumstances of the case   16.    The applicant runs a sex shop in Zurich for homosexual persons. He sells magazines, books, video films and other objects.   Clients know of the shop from advertisements in specialised magazines or from meeting places for homosexuals.   From the street the nature of the shop is not discernible.   17.    In a room at the back of the shop the applicant showed video films to certain persons.   The films were changed every one or two weeks.   Persons knew of these films by word of mouth.   Thus, between 21 and 23 November 1983 the applicant showed the film "New York City", lasting 120 minutes and consisting almost exclusively of sexual acts. Entry to the film was open to any male person interested who paid an entrance fee of 15 SFr or bought sex magazines for over 50 SFr and showed a membership card.   Altogether nine persons saw the film.   a)     Proceedings before the Zurich District Court   18.    On 23 November 1983, following a search of the premises, the Zurich District Attorney's Office (Bezirksanwaltschaft) confiscated the film "New York City", the video recorder, and film takings of 60 SFr. Criminal proceedings were then instituted against the applicant.   On 28 November 1983 the applicant was questioned by the police.   19.    On 15 March 1984 the Zurich District Attorney's Office issued a penal order (Strafbefehl) convicting the applicant of publishing obscene material contrary to Section 204 of the Swiss Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch; see below, Relevant domestic law and practice). The applicant was also convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. For both offences he was fined 6,000 SFr.   20.    Upon the applicant's objection (Einspruch), proceedings were instituted before the Zurich District Court (Bezirksgericht).   On 27 June 1984 the Court convicted the applicant of driving under the influence of alcohol and imposed a fine of 1,000 SFr.   With regard to the offence of publishing obscene material the Court acquitted the applicant.   21.    In its decision the District Court considered that the nature of the shop was not discernible from the street.   Persons wishing to see the film had to disclose that they were homosexuals or show their membership card.   There was also a control in that unwanted persons had no access.   Thus the Court considered that only a small circle of persons could see the film, namely those who knew of it and wanted to see it.   22.    The Court observed that a young plain clothes policeman had seen the film after paying 15 SFr.   The Court considered here the applicant's submissions according to which he had thought the man to be homosexual; he had left the film room very quickly.   The fact that the applicant still remembered this client's conduct led the Court to conclude that the applicant had effective control over his clients.   23.    Given the small circle of viewers it could not be said, in the Court's view, that the obscene material had been made "public" within the meaning of Section 204 of the Penal Code.   The applicant had undertaken all the necessary precautions to ensure that no viewers were unintentionally confronted with the material.   b)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Appeal   24.    The Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office appealed against the decision of the District Court to the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Zurich.   25.    On 18 January 1985, after conducting a hearing, the Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of publishing obscene material contrary to Section 204 para. 1 of the Penal Code, and of driving under the influence of alcohol, and imposed a fine of 4,000 SFr.   26.    In its judgment the Court of Appeal considered that Section 204 envisages the protection of the public in a wider sense.   The Court noted the conditions of access to the backroom of the applicant's shop and the fact that the membership card stated no particulars of the bearer.   It also noted the applicant's submissions that he himself could tell whether or not a person was homosexual.   The Court continued:   [Translation]         "The qualification of publicity does not fall away merely by       applying a restriction to the group of viewers.   Rather, the       latter must clearly be circumscribed and subject to control ...       The applicant's film projection occurred - contrary to the view       of the lower court - publicly as it was accessible, not to an       objectively limited number of a few persons, but an unlimited       number of persons, namely all homosexuals and bisexuals.   Given       the above-mentioned circumstances, the circle of viewers was       therefore not sufficiently subject to control ...   Moreover, the       accused could not determine merely on the basis of the appearance       of a person who, when a first-time client, could not be       personally known to him, whether he was a homosexual person ...       Thus, the applicant, without further ado, granted a plain clothes       policeman, who was investigating the sex shop, entry to the       obscene film at issue as he incorrectly took him to be a       homosexual."   [German]         "Das Merkmal der Öffentlichkeit entfällt nicht schon durch die       Anordnung irgendeiner Begrenzung des Zuschauerkreises, sondern       erst, wenn dieser eindeutig umschrieben und überprüfbar ist ...       Die fragliche Filmvorführung des Angeklagten erfolgte - entgegen       der Ansicht der Vorinstanz - öffentlich, weil sie nicht lediglich       einem objektiv begrenzten Kreis von wenigen Personen, sondern       einem unbeschränkten Personenkreis, nämlich allen Homo- und       Bisexuellen zugänglich war.   Der Zuschauerkreis war aufgrund der       oben erwähnten Umstände insbesondere nicht genügend überprüfbar       ...   Zudem konnte der Angeklagte nicht lediglich aufgrund der       Erscheinung einer Person, die ihm zumindest als erstmaliger Kunde       persönlich nicht bekannt sein konnte, beurteilen, ob es sich um       einen Homosexuellen handle.   So gewährte der Angeklagte ohne       weiteres auch einem jungen Polizeibeamten in zivil, der eine       Überprüfung des Sex-Shops vornahm, Zutritt zum fraglichen       unzüchtigen Film, weil er ihn fälschlicherweise für einen       Homosexuellen hielt."   27.    In its decision the Court also dismissed the applicant's request to hear the policeman as a witness, inter alia as it would be impracticable to have to hear as a witness every official who had participated during the investigations.   c)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Cassation   28.    Against this decision the applicant filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) with the Court of Cassation (Kassations- gericht) of the Canton of Zurich.   In its decision of 25 November 1985 the Court of Cassation upheld the plea of nullity and quashed the previous decision on the ground that the Court of Appeal should have heard the policeman as a witness (see above para. 27).   Its decision was served on the applicant on 27 December 1985.   d)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Appeal   29.    Proceedings were then resumed before the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Zurich which on 28 August 1986 invited the parties to the appeal hearing on 21 October 1986.   On 29 October 1986 the Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of the offence of publishing obscene material and of driving under the influence of alcohol and imposed a fine of 4,000 SFr.   The decision was served on the applicant on 17 February 1987.   e)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Cassation   30.    On 2 March 1987 the applicant filed a plea of nullity against this decision, complaining inter alia of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.   He also complained of the length of the proceedings.   The applicant asked the Court of Cassation to adjourn the proceedings until the European Court had decided on the case of Müller and others v. Switzerland (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133), and the Federal Court had given its decision in another case concerning the applicant.   On 24 March 1987 the Public Prosecutor's Office filed its observations.   31.    On 2 May 1988 the Court of Cassation convicted the applicant of driving under the influence of alcohol and imposed a fine of 800 SFr. It acquitted him of the offence of publishing obscene material.   32.    In its decision numbering 27 pages the Court dismissed the applicant's request for adjourning the proceedings as it was unclear when the European Court would give its judgment in the Müller Case.   33.    The Court moreover found that it was not up to the Convention States to define what fell under Article 10 of the Convention.   Rather, freedom of expression comprised the freedom of individual communication, including the showing of pornographic films.   The decision continues:   [Translation]         "According to the facts underlying the contested conviction there       was no danger that persons without or even against their       intention would have been confronted with the incriminated film.       Admittedly the purchase or delivery of the membership card,       entitling the bearer to enter the projection room, did not       involve serious difficulties ... So it can indeed not be said       that it was a closed private group of persons.   On the other       hand, there can be no doubt that the sex shop in question and,       a fortiori, the adjacent separate projection room could only be       visited by persons who came with the knowledge of what was       awaiting them and intending to see this kind of film ...   If in       fact the only issue is whether adults, who in full knowledge of       its content want to see the film at issue, are indirectly to be       hindered by means of the criminal prosecution of the applicant,       no 'pressing social need' can be discerned for such a manner of       proceeding.   If it were an urgent necessity to protect the       individual from his wish to see obscene publications, one would       consequently also have to punish the private showing of such       films, which however is not the case."   [German]         "Nach dem der angefochtenen Verurteilung zugrundeliegenden       Sachverhalt bestand keine Gefahr dafür, dass Personen ohne oder       gar gegen ihre Absicht mit dem inkriminierten Film konfrontiert       worden wären.   Zwar ist davon auszugehen, dass der Erwerb bzw.       die Aushändigung des Kundenausweises, welcher den Inhaber zum       Betreten des Vorführraumes berechtigte, mit keinen grossen       Schwierigkeiten verbunden war ..., so dass in der Tat nicht von       einem geschlossenen, privaten Personenkreis gesprochen werden       kann.   Auf der anderen Seite besteht aber kein Zweifel daran,       dass der fragliche Sex-Shop und somit erst recht der dazu       gehörende separate Vorführraum nur von Personen aufgesucht wurde,       die in Kenntnis des sie Erwartenden und mit der Absicht, diese       Art von Film zu besichtigen, kamen ...   Wenn es faktisch also nur       darum gehen kann, erwachsene Personen, welche in Kenntnis des       Inhaltes den fraglichen Film sehen wollen, durch strafrechtliche       Verfolgung des Beschwerdeführers indirekt daran zu hindern, so       kann ein 'dringendes soziales Bedürfnis' für ein solches Vorgehen       nicht erkannt werden.   Hält man es für dringend erforderlich, den       einzelnen vor seinem Wunsch zur Betrachtung unzüchtiger       Veröffentlichungen zu schützen, so müsste folgerichtigerweise       auch die völlig geschlossene, private Vorführung deartiger Filme       bestraft werden, was jedoch nicht der Fall ist."   f)     Proceedings before the Federal Court   34.    On 9 May 1988 the Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office filed a plea of nullity against this decision with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht).   On 19 June 1988 the applicant filed his observations thereupon.   35.    On 20 September 1988 the Federal Court upheld the plea of nullity, quashed the decision of the Court of Cassation, and sent the case back to that court for a new judgment.   The decision was served on the applicant on 14 November 1988.   36.    In its decision, the Federal Court stated with reference to Article 10 of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights:   [Translation]         "There is no reason why the morals of adult persons (among whom       there are also persons who are unstable and easily influenced)       and thus the morals of society as a whole should not also be       protected.   In any event, this opinion lies within the margin of       appreciation which the European Court has granted to the       Convention States.   It duly considers the different points of       view which can prevail in a democratic society with regard to the       necessity of protecting morals."   [German]         "Es ist nicht einzusehen, wieso nicht auch die Moral erwachsener       Personen (unter denen sich ebenfalls labile und leicht       beeinflussbare Menschen befinden) und damit die       gesamtgesellschaftliche Moral schützenswert sein sollten.       Jedenfalls liegt diese Ansicht im Rahmen des vom Europäischen       Gerichtshof den Vertragsstaaten eingeräumten Ermessens, welches       den verschiedenen Standpunkten Rechnung trägt, die in einer       demokratischen Gesellschaft hinsichtlich der Erfordernisse des       Schutzes der Moral vorherrschen können."   37.    The Federal Court then considered the Court's judgment in the Müller case (see Eur. Court H.R., loc. cit.).   It continued:   [Translation]         "The difference from the case to be decided today is that in the       present case no adults were confronted against their will, and       no young persons were confronted with the incriminated film 'New       York City'.   But also in such cases punishment is legitimate.       As explained above, Section 204 of the Penal Code concerns the       protection of public decency and morals.   No obscene objects       should be propagated and publicly displayed.   To achieve this aim       a prohibitory norm was enacted and endowed with penal sanctions.       Such a penal norm is necessary as the protection aimed at could       not (at least not with the same efficiency) be achieved in a       different manner."   [German]         "Der Unterschied zum heute zu beurteilenden Fall besteht darin,       dass in casu keine Erwachsenen gegen ihren Willen und keine       Jugendlichen mit dem inkriminierten Film 'New York City'       konfrontiert wurden.   Aber auch in Fällen dieser Art ist eine       Bestrafung zulässig.   Wie oben dargelegt, geht es beim Art. 204       StGB um den Schutz der öffentlichen Sittlichkeit und Moral.   Es       soll verhindert werden, dass unzüchtige Gegenstände verbreitet       und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden können.   Um dieses Ziel       zu erreichen, wurde eine Verbotsnorm aufgestellt und diese mit       strafrechtlichen Sanktionen ausgestattet.   Eine solche Strafnorm       ist notwendig, weil der angestrebte Schutz auf andere Weise gar       nicht (oder jedenfalls nicht in gleich wirksamer Weise) erreicht       werden könnte."   38.    Finally, the Federal Court regarded it as an abuse of rights (rechtsmissbräuchlich) for the applicant to invoke the right to freedom of expression although he was clearly only interested in substantial financial profits from sex business.   39.    The Court thus found that it violated Federal law if Section 204 of the Penal Code was not applied on the grounds that it did not comply with Article 10 of the Convention.   g)     Proceedings before the Zurich Court of Cassation   40.    Proceedings were resumed before the Zurich Court of Cassation. On 3 April 1989 the Zurich Court of Cassation convicted the applicant of publishing obscene material.   In addition to the fine imposed on the applicant on 2 May 1988 he was fined 2,500 SFr.   The decision was served on 13 April 1989.   41.    In its decision, the Court of Cassation stated that it was unnecessary to adjourn the proceedings.   It further noted that the Federal Court had not expressed itself on the issue whether the applicant's acquittal was still possible on the basis of an interpretation of Section 204 of the Penal Code which complied with Federal law.   However, the Court of Cassation considered that undoubtedly (unzweifelhaft) the Federal Court had referred the case back to the Court of Cassation in order to convict the applicant (zur Verurteilung des Beschwerdeführers) according to Section 204.   h)    Proceedings before the Federal Court   42.    The applicant then filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) with the Federal Court in which he complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of equality of arms.   He also complained of a violation of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.   On 31 January 1990 the Federal Court dismissed the appeal.   The decision was served on the applicant on 16 February 1990.   43.    The Court noted that the applicant had correctly not complained that Section 204 of the Penal Code contradicted the Convention (see below, Relevant domestic law and practice).   To the extent that he complained of an indirect violation of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention the Court declared the public law appeal inadmissible as the appropriate remedy would be the plea of nullity to the Federal Court. In this respect, the Federal Court noted that it had already previously decided on the compatibility in the instant case of the applicant's conviction with Article 10 of the Convention.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice   a)     Section 204 of the Swiss Penal Code   44.    Section 204 of the Swiss Penal Code provides:   [Translation]         "1.   Anyone who makes or has in his possession any writings,       pictures, films or other items which are obscene, with a view to       trading in them, distributing them or displaying them in public,       or who, for the above purposes, imports, transports or exports       such items or puts them into circulation in any way, or who       openly or secretly deals in them or publicly distributes or       displays them or by way of trade supplies them for hire, or who       announces or makes known in any way, with a view to facilitating       such prohibited circulation or trade, that anyone is engaged in       any of the aforesaid punishable activities, or who announces or       makes known how or through whom such items may be directly or       indirectly procured, shall be imprisoned or fined.         2.   Anyone supplying or displaying such items to a person under       the age of 18 shall be imprisoned or fined.         3.   The court shall order the destruction of the items."   [German]         "1.   Wer unzüchtige Schriften, Bilder, Filme oder andere       unzüchtige Gegenstände herstellt oder vorrätig hält, um damit       Handel zu treiben, sie zu verbreiten oder öffentlich       auszustellen, wer solche Gegenstände zu den genannten Zwecken       einführt, befördert oder ausführt oder sonstwie in Verkehr       bringt, wer solche Gegenstände öffentlich oder geheim verkauft,       verbreitet, öffentlich ausstellt oder gewerbsmässig ausleiht,       wer, um die verbotene Verbreitung oder den verbotenen Vertrieb       zu fördern, ankündigt oder sonstwie bekannt gibt, dass sich eine       Person mit den genannten strafbaren Handlungen befasst, wer       ankündigt oder bekannt gibt, wie und durch wen die genannten       Gegenstände unmittelbar oder mittelbar bezogen werden können,       wird mit Gefängnis oder mit Busse bestraft.         2.   Wer solche Gegenstände einer Person unter 18 Jahren übergibt       oder vorzeigt, wird mit Gefängnis oder mit Busse bestraft.         3.   Der Richter lässt die unzüchtigen Gegenstände vernichten."   45.    The Federal Court has interpreted the notion "public" as requiring that an indeterminate group of persons, not subject to control (unbestimmter, unkontrollierter Personenkreis), has access to the obscene material.   The agreement of the persons concerned is irrelevant (see Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral suisse [ATF] 100 IV 237, 96 IV 68, 87 IV 84).   In ATF 116 IV 276ff, the Federal Court considered that cinema projections of so-called "soft pornography" no longer contravened Section 204 of the Penal Code, "if it is ensured that the cinema visitor knows in advance about the character of the film, and access is prohibited to persons below 18 years of age" ("wenn gewährleistet ist, dass der Kinobesucher im voraus über den Charakter des Films aufgeklärt wird und noch nicht 18jährigen Personen der Zutritt untersagt ist", loc. cit. p. 281).   46.    The Swiss Penal Code has meanwhile been revised.   Section 197 para. 1 now states that whoever displays inter alia pornographic films to persons under 16 years of age will be punished with imprisonment or a fine.   Section 197 para. 2 imposes a fine on persons who display such films in public; no punishment is imposed if the film is displayed in a closed room and an indication is given in advance to the visitors as to the pornographic character of the film.   According to Section 197 para. 3, whoever displays films showing sexual acts with children, animals, human excrements, or violence, will be punished with a fine or imprisonment.   b)     Remedies to the Federal Court   47.    According to Section 113 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution (Bundesverfassung) the Federal Court cannot examine whether a Federal Act (Bundesgesetz), such as the Penal Code, complies as such with the Constitution or the Convention.   Complaints about violations by cantonal authorities of the Constitution or the Convention must in the last resort be filed with the Federal Court by means of a public law appeal (Section 84 of the Federal Judiciary Act, Organisationsgesetz). The incorrect application of a Federal Act must be raised in a plea of nullity (Section 268 of the Federal Act on Criminal Procedure, Bundesstrafprozessordnung).   Where it is complained that a judge, by incorrectly interpreting a Federal Act, has breached the Convention, this complaint is considered as one of an indirect violation of the Convention (mittelbare Konventionsverletzung) which must be raised in a plea of nullity (see ATF 116 I a 74 f, 112 IV 133).   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   48.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 8 and 10 (Art. 8, 10) of the Convention about his criminal conviction for showing a film and his complaints under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.   B.     Points at issue   49.    Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the       Convention;   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the       Convention;   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1       (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.     Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   50.    The applicant complains that his conviction for showing the film "New York City" breached his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   He submits that Section 204 of the Penal Code is not sufficiently precise to serve as a legal basis for such a conviction.   The conviction was unnecessary, given the fact that only persons who intended to see the film could do so and young persons were not allowed in.   The applicant also refers to the recent case ATF 116 IV 276 of the Federal Court (see above para. 45).   51.    Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention states:         "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 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."   52.    The Government submit that the recent case ATF 116 IV 276 of the Federal Court did not concern homosexual obscene material as in the present case.   They furthermore refer to a decision by the Commission (No. 16564/90 Dec. 8.4.91, to be published in D.R.), finding that a conviction for renting or selling obscene video films would correspond to a pressing social need and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued under Article 10 (Art. 10).   a)     Interference with the applicant's right   53.    It is undisputed between the parties, and the Commission accepts, that the right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, comprised the showing of the film at issue.   54.    The applicant's conviction for showing the film constituted an interference by a public authority with the exercise of his rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1).   The Commission's next task is therefore to examine whether this interference was justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2).   b)     Legal basis for the interference   55.    The Commission finds that Section 204 of the Swiss Penal Code was sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to foresee the consequences which the showing of the film would entail.   The interference at issue was therefore "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   c)     Aim of the interference   56.    The measure furthermore aimed at the "protection of ... morals" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   d)     Necessity of the interference   57.    Finally, the Commission must examine whether t