CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 29 novembre 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 18033/91                       by Cable Music Europe Ltd.                       against the Netherlands        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 29 November 1993, the following members being present:                    MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA              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 15 February 1991 by Cable Music Europe Ltd. against the Netherlands and registered on 4 April 1991 under file No. 18033/91;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, Cable Music Europe Ltd, a limited company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom, has its registered office in London.   Before the Commission the applicant company is represented by Mr. P.B. Hugenholtz and Mr. A.J.H.W.M. Versteeg, who are lawyers, practising in Amsterdam.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        The applicant company was originally founded by two Dutch nationals; its everyday management is in the hands of Dutch nationals and it is funded by Dutch capital.        In 1989, another company, Radio Broadland Holdings PLC, acquired the majority of the applicant company's shares.        The applicant company founded Cable Music Europe B.V., a limited company incorporated under Dutch law, which latter company produced the radio programme "Cable One".        This programme, recorded in Hilversum, the Netherlands, mainly consists of light music and is interrupted by news bulletins both in English and Dutch and by commercials.   It is mainly presented in Dutch by disc-jockeys from the Netherlands and most of the commercials in the programme are in Dutch.        Cable Music Europe B.V. rented a satellite channel from the Dutch Post and Telecommunications authorities (P.T.T.) and transmitted its programme via the telecommunications satellite ECS-1, from the ground station at Nederhorst den Berg, the Netherlands, to Dutch cable networks and individuals possessing a dish aerial.        By summons of 8 April 1988 the Netherlands Broadcasting Programme Foundation (Nederlandse Omroepprogramma Stichting - hereinafter referred to as "NOS") started civil proceedings against the State of the Netherlands and the Commissariat for the Media (Commissariaat voor de Media) before the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of the Hague.        The NOS requested the Court to:   -     declare that the Dutch State acts unlawfully by offering facilities for the transmission of programmes such as "Cable One", this being contrary to the rules on the distribution of broadcasting time under the Media Act (Mediawet) and the rules on making transmitters available for domestic broadcasts under the Radio Broadcast Transmitter Act 1935 (Radio Omroep Zenderwet 1935);   -     state that the Commissariat for the Media must impose sanctions on cable network operators who transmit programmes such as "Cable One";   -     give a definition of a foreign broadcasting company within the meaning of Section 66 para. 1 (b) of the Media Act;   -     state that Cable Music Europe B.V. is not a foreign broadcasting company within the meaning of Section 66 para. 1 (b) of the Media Act. By judgment of 18 January 1989 the Regional Court declared itself incompetent to examine alleged violations of the Media Act, this task being entrusted to the Commissariat for the Media, and considered the Radio Broadcast Transmitter Act 1935 inapplicable to Cable Music Europe Ltd..   The Court also declared itself incompetent to deal with the other matters as the NOS could request the Commissariat for the Media directly to impose a sanction, there being a possibility to challenge the latter's decision, fictitious or otherwise, subsequently before the administrative court. The Court observed that the Commissariat in defining a foreign broadcasting company is bound by the judge's finding on this point.   The Court added that if the NOS disagrees with the Commissariat's interpretation of this term, it could challenge this definition before the administrative court.        By decision of 17 February 1989 the Commissariat refused to impose a sanction on a cable network operator for having transmitted the "Cable One" programme.        On 17 March 1989 the NOS filed an appeal against this decision with the Judicial Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State).        By decision of 30 August 1989 the Judicial Division quashed the contested decision of 17 February 1989.   The Judicial Division noted, inter alia, that the most important area in which the programme is diffused lies in the Netherlands with about 1.5 million cable connections, whereas it is also transmitted through the British Cable Authority to a small local network in Glasgow with about 8000 connections.        The Judicial Division also noted that Section 66 para. 1 (b) of the Media Act does not give a definition of a foreign broadcasting company.   It did not consider Cable Music Europe Ltd's features, as presented by the Commissariat, as conclusive.   Referring to the discussion in Parliament on this provision, the Judicial Division held it cannot have been the legislator's intention to enable cable network operators to transmit programmes of broadcasting companies, who have established themselves abroad with the apparent intention to evade Dutch statutory regulations for domestic broadcasts. In this respect the Judicial Division considered it important to examine whether programmes of a foreign broadcasting company have originally been broadcast abroad and subsequently transmitted from there to Dutch cable networks.        The Judicial Division concluded that the meaning which the Commissariat for the Media gave to the notion of "foreign broadcasting company" was contrary to Section 66 para. 1 (b) of the Media Act.        By letter of 18 September 1989 the Commissariat for the Media informed the applicant company of its decision to request operators of cable networks in the Netherlands, via a letter addressed to the Board of the Association of Operators and Licensees of Central Cable Networks (Vereniging van Exploitanten en Machtigingshouders van Centrale Antenne-inrichtingen), to end the transmission of the "Cable One" programme at the latest on 1 October 1989.        On 5 October 1989 the applicant company filed an appeal under the Administrative Decisions Appeals Act (Administratieve Rechtspraak Overheidsbeschikkingen) against this decision with the Judicial Division of the Council of State.        By decision of 5 September 1990 the Judicial Division declared the applicant company's appeal inadmissible insofar as it related to the Commissariat's letter to the Board of the Association of Operators and Licensees of Central Cable Networks and rejected the remainder of the appeal.        Insofar as the applicant company alleged a violation of Article 10 of the Convention either separately or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the Judicial Division primarily noted that the Media Act aims at maintaining a multiform and non-commercial broadcasting system and at protecting the diversity of expression of opinion in the broadcasting system.        The Media Act contains a number of institutional provisions for the realisation of the right contained in Article 10 of the Convention without commercial influences on the broadcasted programmes.        The Judicial Division considered that in the system of the Media Act it is essential that the distinction between domestic and foreign programmes be strictly maintained and that, when a broadcasting institution has been established abroad with the apparent intention to evade the rules which apply to the domestic broadcasting system, the institutional framework in force in the Netherlands is undermined ("fraus legis").        The Judicial Division, referring to the Groppera Radio A.G. and others judgment of 28 March 1990 by the European Court of Human Rights, held that the application of Sections 65, 66 and 70 of the Media Act as contained in the contested decision must be considered as an interference which is justified under Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW        Public broadcasting in the Netherlands is governed by the Media Act, which aims at a national public broadcasting system based on openness, diversity, non-commerciality and co-operation. It lays down the requirements which have to be met by broadcasting institutions, who wish to gain access to the Dutch public broadcasting system. If a broadcasting institution meets the requirements of the Media Act, broadcasting time and certain funds to finance broadcasting activities are allocated by the Commissariat for the Media. Under the Media Act broadcasting institutions are under the obligation to provide a full programme and to eschew advertising. Only the Television and Radio Advertising Association (Stichting Etherreclame "STER") is allowed to broadcast commercials. The proceeds of these commercials is one of the sources for the funds the Commissariat for the Media allocates to broadcasting institutions.        Section 134 para. 1 of the Media Act entrusts the supervision of the observance of the Media Act to the Commissariat for the Media, which organ can impose a fine where it considers that the Media Act has been violated.    Section 65 of the Media Act, insofar as relevant, reads:   <Translation>        "1. The operator of a cable network transmits      simultaneously and in full length to all connected to the      cable network:        a. the programmes of institutions which have obtained      broadcasting time for national broadcasts;        b. the programmes of institutions which have obtained      broadcasting time for local and regional broadcasts ...        d. the television programmes of the Dutch language section      of the Belgian public broadcasting service, insofar as      these can be received directly most of the time with      reasonable quality at the place where the cable network is      located by the use of an antenna which can be considered as      regular having regard to the capacity of the cable network      ...        3.     The operator of a cable network shall not transmit the      European programme (within the meaning of Section 16 para.      2 (e)), when this programme does not comply with the      requirements of Section 66 para. 1 (b) ..."        Section 66 of the Media Act, insofar as relevant, provides:   <Translation>        "1. The operator of a cable network can:        a. transmit programmes which have been broadcast by a      foreign broadcasting institution by way of a broadcasting      station which can be received directly most of the time      with reasonable quality at the place where the cable      network is located by a regular individual antenna situated      at that place;        b. transmit other programmes than those referred to under      a. which have been broadcast, in accordance with the      legislation there in force, by a foreign broadcasting      institution or a composition of such institutions.   Insofar      as these programmes contain commercials, the transmission      thereof is only allowed when the commercials are dealt with      by a separate legal entity, when the commercials are      clearly identifiable as such and can be clearly      distinguished from other programme parts and are not      broadcast on Sundays, when the allocated broadcasting time      for commercials is at most five percent of the total      broadcasting time ... and the proceeds thereof are fully      used for the production of the programme.        If however the above requirements are not met the      transmission of such a programme is also allowed when the      commercials it contains are not specifically aimed at a      Dutch audience.        2. For the application of what is contained in para. 1 (b)      a commercial will in any event be considered as      specifically aimed at a Dutch audience when the commercial      is broadcast during or following a programme part or a      connected whole of programme parts in which Dutch subtitles      or an item in the Dutch language occur.        3. Our Minister can grant an exemption from the prohibition      as contained in para. 1 (b) in respect of broadcasting      programmes which are broadcast in Belgium and aim at the      Dutch speaking audience in Belgium."        Section 70 para. 1 of the Media Act reads:   <Translation>        "With the exception of the programmes referred to in this      Chapter (Sections 65 up to and including 75), the operator      of a cable network shall not simultaneously broadcast other      programmes to more than one connected receiver."        The wording of Section 66 para. 1(b) of the Media Act has recently been altered in that the rules in respect of commercials appearing in broadcasts of foreign broadcasting institutions are no longer included in the text of this provision. At present, in order to be eligible for transmission on Dutch cable networks, Dutch national broadcasting institutions must comply with the requirements under Dutch law and foreign broadcasting institutions must comply with the legislation of their own country.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant company complains that the prohibition to diffuse its programmes via Dutch cable networks unjustly interfered with its rights under Article 10 of the Convention.   2.2. The applicant company complains under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention that the Netherlands authorities' decision not to consider it as a foreign broadcasting company was discriminatory as two other broadcasting companies in a similar position, RTL-Veronique and Radio 10, were allowed on Dutch cable networks as foreign broadcasting companies.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 15 February 1991 and registered on 4 April 1991.        On 29 March 1993 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.        The Government's observations were submitted on 10 June 1993 and the applicant company's observations in reply were submitted on 5 August 1993.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant company complains that the prohibition to diffuse its programmes via Dutch cable networks unjustly interfered with its rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.        Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention provides 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.   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 Government concede that the refusal to permit the applicant company to transmit its programme on the Dutch cable network interfered with the applicant company's right to impart information within the meaning of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention. The Government are, however, of the opinion that this interference was justified under para. 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2). They submit that the interference is based on Sections 65, 66 and 70 of the Media Act and, given that the objective of the Dutch public broadcasting system is to present a varied programme to a wide audience by guaranteeing the diversity and independence in the supply of information by a non- commercial broadcasting system, and thus to ensure freedom of expression for the various social, cultural, religious and philosophical groupings in the Netherlands, that the interference was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others and for the prevention of disorder.        Elaborating on the aim of the interference in the present case with reference to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Groppera Radio AG and Others (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173,) and Autronic AG (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178), the Government contend that the protection of the diversity of the opinions expressed in broadcasting constitutes protection of the rights of others, and that the protection of cultural and political diversity may be regarded as a factor in the prevention of disorder.        The Government submit that the system set out in the Media Act gives sufficient scope for private broadcasting institutions to express their opinions. Forty holders of broadcasting franchises have obtained broadcasting time. Until July 1992 only national commercial broadcasting institutions were not granted permission to broadcast. Since then national commercial broadcasting has become possible due to the following factors: increasing pressure from the Dutch broadcasting, publishing and advertising sectors to end the monopoly enjoyed by the public broadcasting system in the Netherlands and to permit profit- making activities, and the approval of EEC directives in the field, as a result of which foreign commercial broadcasting institutions acquired greater access to the national cable network. National commercial broadcasting has, however, not been included in the regulations governing the public system, but has been given a position alongside it.        The Government submit that the recent changes in the Media Act have not changed the position of broadcasting institutions established abroad with the evident intention of evading the Dutch statutory regulations for national broadcasting institutions. Such institutions are not regarded as foreign broadcasting institutions.        The Government further point out that the applicant company was established and is managed by Dutch nationals, is financed by Dutch capital and that the Cable One programme is produced in the Netherlands, is intended for the Dutch public and is broadcast from Dutch territory.        The applicant company emphasises that its programme was broadcast lawfully and that, at the material time, Section 70 of the Media Act was drafted as an unconditional ban and not as a licensing system within the meaning of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention. Since the Judicial Division did not accept the applicant company as a foreign broadcasting institution, it was confronted with the absolute and unconditional ban under Section 70 of the Media Act.        The applicant company submits that an absolute and unconditional ban on a form of expression covered by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention cannot be regarded as a restriction justified under para. 2 of this provision, as such a ban can never satisfy the condition that an interference must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.        The applicant company contends that the Judicial Division, when on 5 September 1990 it took its decision in the applicant company's case, was already aware of the proposed amendment to the Media Act authorising national commercial broadcasting. Before the Government submitted this amendment to Parliament on 18 May 1990, the Council of State, of which the Judicial Division forms a part, had in accordance with the Constitution been consulted on this bill. The applicant company finds that under these circumstances the justification invoked by the Government, i.e. the protection of the national public system, was no longer a tenable argument.        Furthermore, the applicant company contends that the decision of the Judicial Division was not based on technical considerations, since the Media Act does not deal with the technical aspects of programme transmission via cable networks, and that the rights of others were not affected since its programme was intended for the general public and did not, in technical terms, interfere with any other broadcast by any other station.        The Commission recalls that both broadcasting programmes over the air and cable retransmissions of such programmes fall within the scope of the rights enshrined in the first two sentences of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Groppera Radio AG and Others judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 22, para. 55). Consequently, there has been an interference with the applicant company's rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.        The Commission further recalls that the purpose of the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention is to make it clear that States are permitted to control by a licensing system the way in which broadcasting is organised in their territories, particularly in its technical aspects (ibid. p. 24, para. 61), and that since a State may enact legislation requiring the licensing of broadcasting enterprises, it must also be legitimate for that State to enact legislation which ensures compliance with the licence in question, in particular by preventing means of circumventing the conditions stated in the licence (cf. No. 10799/84, Dec. 17.5.84, D.R. 37 p. 236).        The Commission notes that, although the applicant company is incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom, the broadcasting of its programme via Dutch cable networks came under the Netherlands' jurisdiction. The prohibition to diffuse its programmes via Dutch cable networks was fully consistent with the rules of the Media Act, given that the applicant company, on the basis of its particular features, was not considered by the Judicial Division to be a foreign broadcasting company and was therefore subject to the broadcasting rules of the Netherlands. However, the Judicial Division's decision was not based on technical considerations and the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention, in the interpretation given to it by the domestic courts, cannot be regarded as a sufficient justification for the prohibition (Nos. 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90, Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, Comm. Report 9.9.92, para. 65).        The question therefore arises whether the interference complained of was justified under para. 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention, namely whether it was "prescribed by law" and necessary in a democratic society for one or more of the legitimate aims specified in this provision.        The Commission observes that the prohibition against the transmission of the applicant company's programme via the Dutch cable networks was based on Sections 65, 66 and 70 of the Media Act. It is true that the Media Act does not contain a definition of a "foreign broadcasting company", but the mere fact that a legislative provision may give rise to problems of interpretation does not mean that it is so vague and imprecise as to lack the quality of "law" in this connection (Nos. 11553/85 and 11658/85, Dec. 9.3.87, D.R. 51 p. 136, with further references). The Commission finds that, in the present case, there was a sufficient legal basis and that the interference at issue was therefore "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.        The Commission notes that the interference complained of was based on the maintenance of a pluralistic and non-commercial broadcasting system and on the protection of the diversity of expression of opinion in the Dutch broadcasting system. It therefore finds that the legitimate aim pursued was the protection of the rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.        As to the question whether the interference complained of was "necessary", the Commission recalls that the term "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention implies that the interference must correspond to a "pressing social need" and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether an interference is "necessary" in a democratic society the Convention organs must also take into account the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States. The margin of appreciation is of particular relevance in an area as complex and fluctuating as that of radio and television broadcasting. This is confirmed by Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention itself, in that it envisages in the third sentence of para. 1 a licensing system for broadcasting enterprises (Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, ibid., paras. 78-79).        The Commission observes that in the present case the applicant company complains of not being allowed to broadcast its programme via the Dutch cable network as a foreign broadcasting company. Under the Media Act it is possible for broadcasting institutions to obtain permission to broadcast their programmes in the Netherlands. The Commission notes that the recent changes in the Media Act have not affected the position of broadcasting institutions established abroad with the evident intention of evading the Dutch statutory regulations for national broadcasting institutions. They are not regarded as foreign broadcasting institutions, but as national broadcasting institutions subject to the rules on broadcasting applicable to such institutions.        The Commission notes that, while the applicant company is incorporated under British law and has its seat in the United Kingdom, the programme at issue is specifically intended for the Dutch public. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that both the company and the Cable One programme have other strong links with the Netherlands, the Dutch authorities could reasonably consider that these broadcasts should be subject to those rules which normally apply to Dutch broadcasting institutions.   There is no indication that these rules, insofar as they are relevant to the present case, involve restrictions which would be in violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.        In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the interference at issue may reasonably be regarded as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others, as envisaged by the second paragraph of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.2. The applicant company further complains under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 (Art. 14+10) of the Convention that the Netherlands authorities' decision not to consider it as a foreign broadcasting company was discriminatory as two other broadcasting companies in a similar position, RTL-Veronique and Radio 10, were accepted on Dutch cable networks as foreign broadcasting companies.        Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides as follows:        "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this      Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground      such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other      opinion, national or social origin, association with a national      minority, property, birth or other status."        The Government submit that the Media Act contains no precise indication of which broadcasting institutions may be regarded as foreign. The Judicial Division has established the following criteria to be met by broadcasting institutions if they are to be regarded as possessing foreign status:        - the institution must be established under foreign law;        - the institution must be established abroad;        - the institution must keep its accounts abroad and be liable to      local taxes;        - there must be no indication that the institution has been      established abroad with the evident intention of evading the      statutory regulations applicable in the Netherlands to national      broadcasting institutions;        - the institution's programme schedule must first be broadcast      abroad and then transmitted from there to Dutch cable networks.        The Government further submit that, on the basis of the above criteria, the Judicial Division considered that the programme schedules of both RTL-Veronique and Radio 10 were programme schedules of foreign broadcasting institutions. The Government find that the situation of the applicant company is fundamentally different from that of both RTL- Veronique and Radio 10. The latter both form a part of already existing foreign broadcasting enterprises. Their programmes are broadcast from abroad and, according to the Commissariat for the Media, there are no indications that they were established abroad with the evident intention of evading Dutch media legislation. The applicant company, however, was established and is managed by Dutch nationals, is financed by Dutch capital and the Cable One programme is produced in the Netherlands and is broadcast from an earth station in the Netherlands.        The applicant company submits that the application of Sections 65, 66 and 70 of the Media Act constitutes discrimination on the basis of nationality, since the system of the Media Act only envisaged programmes of national broadcasting institutions forming a part of the public broadcasting system and programmes of foreign broadcasting companies. Programmes of stations, such as that of the applicant company, which do not belong to either category, were thus confronted with an absolute ban on the exercise of the rights contained in Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.        The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) does not forbid every difference in treatment in the exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. It refers in this connection to the case-law of the Court concerning the criteria for assessing a difference in treatment: There must be established an objective and reasonable justification for the measure in question, as well as a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, paras. 71-72, and Eur. Court H.R., Fredin judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, para. 60).        The Commission notes the Government's statement - which has not been contested by the applicant company - that there were a number of important differences between the applicant company, on the one hand, and RTL-Veronique and Radio 10, on the other.   In view of these differences, the distinction made in accepting the two latter institutions as foreign broadcasting enterprises, and not the applicant company, must be considered to be based on objective and reasonable grounds.        The Commission finds, therefore, that the present case does not disclose any appearance of discrimination contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of 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, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission        (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NORGAARD)