CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 27 novembre 1996

.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. 25181/94                       by H. U. H.                       against Switzerland         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    S. TRECHSEL                  J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 13 September 1994 by H. U. H. against Switzerland and registered on 19 September 1994 under file No. 25181/94;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       2 April 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 19 June 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant, a Swiss citizen, is an engineer residing in Wattenwil in Switzerland.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr R. Schaller, a lawyer practising in Geneva.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   A.     Particular circumstances of the case         The applicant undertakes environmental biological research in his own laboratory.   One research project concerned food prepared in microwave ovens.         In spring 1991, he published, together with B., a professor at the Federal Technical High School in Lausanne, a research report with the title "Comparative investigations on the effects on human beings of food prepared by conventional means and in microwave ovens".   The report contained the following results:   <Translation>         "Food which has been heated up, or thawed out, or cooked, in a       microwave oven (milk and vegetables) caused in the blood of the       test persons some significant changes such as: the reduction of       all haemoglobin values, and an increase of haematocrits,       leucocytes and of cholesteric values, in particular of the HDL       and LDL portions.   As regards lymphocytes, a more pronounced       decrease in the short term was apparent, particularly in the case       of vegetables prepared in the microwave oven, than in all other       variants.         On the basis of the luminosity of luminous bacteria, a       significant relation was apparent between the absorption by the       radiated food of technical microwave energy and the luminosity       which was subsequently measured in the blood serum of the test       persons.   It can be concluded therefrom that this technical       energy was inductively transmitted via the food to the human       being; a process which is determined according to physical laws       and which is confirmed by statements in literature.         The measured effects of microwaves via food on human beings       demonstrate, as opposed to unradiated food, changes in the blood       which indicate the commencement of a pathological process, as       also found when cancerous growth is initiated."   <German>         "Die im Mikrowellenherd erhitzte, aufgetaute oder gekochte       Nahrung (Milch und Gemüse) verursachte im Blut von Probanden       teils signifikante Veränderungen wie: Abnahme aller Hämoglobin-       Werte und Zunahme des Hämatokrites, der Leukozyten und der       Cholesterin-Werte, im besonderen der HDL- und der LDL-Anteile.       Bei den Lympozyten war vor allem beim im Mikrowellenofen       aufbereiteten Gemüse eine kurzfristig stärkere Abnahme       feststellbar als bei allen anderen Varianten.       Anhand der Leuchtkraft lumineszierender Bakterien wurde ein       signifikanter Zusammenhang zwischen der Aufnahme technischer       Mikrowellen-Energie von den bestrahlten Nahrungsmitteln und der       Leuchtkraft, die anschliessend im Blutserum der Probanden       gemessen werden konnte, festgestellt.   Daraus kann eine induktive       Weitergabe dieser technischen Energie via die Nahrung auf den       Menschen abgeleitet werden; ein Vorgang, der physikalisch       gesetzmässig festgelegt ist und auch durch Aussagen in der       Literatur bestätigt wird.         Die gemessenen Auswirkungen der Mikrowellen über die Nahrung auf       den Menschen zeigen, im Gegensatz zur nichtbestrahlten Nahrung,       Veränderungen im Blut, die auf den Beginn eines pathologischen       Prozesses hinweisen, und wie sie auch bei der Auslösung eines       Krebsgeschehens vorliegen."         In 1992 a number of journals and magazines referred to the applicant's report either fully or in part, for instance "Raum & Zeit" and "Vita Sana Magazin".         The "Journal Franz Weber" had on the cover page the text "Microwaves: Danger scientifically proven" and displayed a reaper (Sensemann) carrying a microwave oven.   The article itself had the title "Microwave ovens: a danger for health.   The evidence is uncontestable" and stated inter alia:   <Translation>         "The research results of B. and (the applicant) are so worrying       that one should prohibit the use of microwaves as soon as       possible and stop the production and trade of such apparatuses.       At the same time all microwave ovens currently in use should be       destroyed.   Public health is at stake! ... The ... indubitably       proven, devastating characteristics of microwaves adversely       affect ... also directly via the radiated food the human being."   <German>         "Die Forschungsergebnisse von B. und (des Beschwerdeführers) sind       dermassen besorgniserregend, dass man den Gebrauch von       Mikrowellen schnellstens verbieten und die Herstellung sowie den       Handel mit solchen Geräten einstellen sollte.   Zugleich sollten       alle Mikrowellenherde, die derzeit in Betrieb sind, vernichtet       werden.   Die öffentliche Gesundheit steht auf dem Spiel! ... Die       ... zweifellos bewiesenen, zerstörerischen Eigenschaften der       Mikrowellen wirken ... auch auf direktem Wege über die bestrahlte       Nahrung schädlich auf den Menschen."         The "Journal Franz Weber" mentioned the applicant's name both as the co-author of the article and the editor of the journal.         In a previous article in the "Journal Franz Weber", published in 1989, the applicant had written:   <Translation>         "Today, microwaves, together with cigarettes, are probably one       of the worst reasons for cancer which the human mind has ever       thought up ... Have you got a microwave oven within your walls?       Then bring it as soon as possible back to where you bought it so       it can be disposed of!   For microwave ovens are more malicious       than the gas stoves of Dachau.   If you prepare your meals in such       an oven, your slow death will begin ..."   <German>         "Die Mikrowellen gehören heute zusammen mit den Zigaretten zu den       wohl schlimmsten Ursachen des Krebses, die das menschliche Gehirn       sich jemals ausgedacht hat ... Haben Sie in Ihren Wänden einen       Mikrowellenofen?   Dann bringen Sie ihn schleunigst zur       Beseitigung dorthin zurück, wo Sie ihn gekauft haben!   Denn die       Mikrowellenöfen sind heimtückischer als die Gasöfen von Dachau!       Wenn Sie ihr Essen in solch einem Ofen zubereiten, beginnt Ihr       langsames Sterben ..."         Professor B. later distanced himself in a newspaper article from the applicant's publications.   In Professor B.'s submissions, the research of 1989 only permitted the conclusion that further research should be undertaken on the matter.   He found that the applicant's conclusions had such a weak basis that a normal scientist would never have dared formulate them.         Subsequently, the Association of Electrical Appliances for Household and Trade in Switzerland (Fachverband Elektroapparate für Haushalt und Gewerbe in der Schweiz) told the applicant that his statements concerning the influence on the health of human beings of microwave ovens amounted to a completely unjustified denunciation (Verteufelung) of the apparatus lacking serious scientific conclusions. The applicant was requested to issue a declaration according to which in future he would no longer make any unfair statements about microwave ovens.   The applicant did not react thereto.         On 7 August 1992 the Association filed an action against the applicant before the Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) of the Canton of Bern.   The Association submitted an expert opinion of Professor T. of the Federal Technical High School at Zurich who had specialised in food research.   In his opinion, Professor T. concluded that the applicant's research was useless and the conclusions untenable.         On 19 March 1993 the Commercial Court upheld the action and prohibited the applicant, under threat of punishment, from stating that food which had been prepared in microwave ovens was hazardous to health and led to changes in the blood of consumers, indicating a situation which could amount to the beginning of cancerous growth.   The applicant was also prohibited from using in publications or in public conferences about microwave ovens the picture of a reaper or any other symbol of death.   The Court relied in its decision on Sections 2 and 3(a) of the Federal Unfair Competition Act (Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, see below, Relevant domestic law).         The applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) dismissed on 25 February 1994, the decision being served on 28 March 1994.         In its decision, the Court found that scientific research and publications did not as such fall within the framework of competition (wettbewerbsgerichtet) as long as they remained academic.   Scientific statements interfered with competition, however, if, as in the present case, they were employed negatively to influence the sale of a particular product.         The Court further noted that in the proceedings the applicant had admitted that he liked the idea of the death symbol of a reaper, and that Professor B. had formally distanced himself from the research. The decision continued:   <Translation>         "Positive or negative publicity with scientific data must       therefore, in the public interest and in order to ensure       effective competition, only be admitted if the data correspond       to established scientific conclusions, or at least if the       diverging views are clearly referred to.   If there is no full       guarantee that the scientific data are correct, their uncritical       publication is at least misleading and therefore deceptive within       the meaning of Article 3 para. a of the Federal Unfair       Competition Act ... According to the Commercial Court's       conclusions the applicant's views are not at all scientifically       secure; on the contrary, they are, on the whole, rejected.   To       state in the context of competition that they are correct is       inadmissible within the meaning of Article 3 para. a of the       Federal Unfair Competition Act..."   <German>         "Positive wie negative Werbung mit wissenschaftlichen Angaben ist       daher im Interesse der Allgemeinheit und des funktionierenden       Wettbewerbs bloss zuzulassen, wenn diese Angaben gesicherter       wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis entsprechen, oder wenn jedenfalls       unmissverständlich auf den Meinungsstreit hingewiesen wird.       Besteht keine volle Gewähr für die Richtigkeit der       wissenschaftlichen Angaben, ist deren unkritische Weitergabe zum       mindesten täuschend und damit irreführend im Sinne von Art. 3       lit. a UWG ...   Nach den tatsächlichen Feststellungen des       Handelsgerichts ist die Auffassung des Beklagten keineswegs       wissenschaftlich gesichert, vielmehr wird sie überwiegend       abgelehnt.   Sie im Wettbewerbsbezug als richtig auszugeben, ist       nach Art. 3 lit. a UWG nicht zulässig ..."         The Court concluded that a person relying on the freedom of scientific research was free to explain his conclusions within academic circles.   However, in the context of competition he could not assume that his views were correct if they were disputed.   B.     Relevant domestic law   1.     According to Section 2 of the Federal Unfair Competition Act (Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb), any conduct, influencing relations between competitors or between persons offering and receiving, is unfair and unlawful if it is deceptive or in any other way breaches the principle of good faith.         According to Section 3 para. a of the Federal Act, unfair conduct consists of diminishing others, their goods, works, achievements, their prices or their business situation by means of incorrect, misleading or unnecessarily damaging statements (wer andere, ihre Waren, Werke, Leistungen, deren Preise oder ihre Geschäftsverhältnisse durch unrichtige, irreführende oder unnötig verletzende Äusserungen herabsetzt).         Section 9 envisages an action for persons claiming to have been threatened by means of unfair competition.   2.     According to Section 84 of the Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz), complaints about cantonal acts must be raised before the Federal Court by means of a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde).   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of the prohibition to publish his views according to which he has scientific proof that microwave ovens are hazardous for consumers' health.   He is by no means the only one to draw attention to these dangers; reference is made for instance to an article in Le Monde of 27 February 1993 according to which Electricité de France is undertaking research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on health.         The applicant submits that the interference with his right under Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention was not "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention; thus, the Federal Unfair Competition Act is too general and does not cover scientific research.   Moreover, there was no aim justifying the interference with the applicant's rights within the meaning of para. 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, and the interference was also not "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of this provision.   Thus, he did not publish his conclusions in a commercial context, and it was absolutely disproportionate to stifle the applicant's weak critical voice in view of the opportunities available to producers to present the advantages of their product.   2.     Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that the prohibition to publish his views calls in question his position as a scientist.   3.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the authorities prohibited him from undertaking an act which he did not intend to carry out.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 13 September 1994 and registered on 19 September 1994.         On 16 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 2 April 1996.   The applicant replied on 19 June 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.     THE LAW         Under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the applicant complains of the prohibition to publish the results of his scientific research.   The applicant also invokes Articles 6 and 8 (Art. 6, 8) of the Convention.         Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, 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 ...         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 submit that the interference with the applicant's rights was justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   Thus, the measure was "prescribed by law" as required by this provision in that it was based on Section 9 of the Unfair Competition Act. Moreover, the measure aimed at "the protection of the ... rights of others" and "the prevention of disorder" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         The Government submit that the domestic authorities had not exceeded the margin of appreciation left to them under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2).   Thus, the measure only affected the applicant in his commercial competition relations.   He remains free to undertake scientific studies and to publish his results, in particular in scientific and academic circles.   It is true that scientific progress at times originates in far-fetched ideas, and the Federal Court never determined whether or not microwave ovens damaged health.         In the Government's opinion, the question before the authorities was whether or not these dangers were scientifically proven.   They concluded that there was a controversy in this respect and that one could not therefore refer to objectively and scientifically established dangers.   Indeed, commercial publicity is inadmissible where it is incorrectly presented as being scientifically proven.   Insofar as the applicant also employed symbols of death in his publications, this was bad taste, unnecessarily hurtful and misleading.   In a publication in 1989 the applicant compared microwave ovens with Nazi concentration camps.         These arguments are contested by the applicant.   He contends that the law is unclear.   It gives the impression that it concerns persons interested in competition.   A wide interpretation of the law would prevent a large number of religious, philosophical or political opinions.   The applicant further points out that Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention does not mention "the economic well-being of the country" as in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         The applicant further submits that the Government are avoiding the real issue, namely whether it can be justified to prohibit the publication of a thesis only because it is not considered to be scientifically proven.   The authorities intervened in a phase of scientific research and issued a prohibition although the applicant undertakes individual research and plays no part in the commerce of microwave ovens.   The publication of 1989 was never the object of the present proceedings.         The applicant claims that it is disproportionate to throttle a weak critic whereas the producers of microwave ovens constantly advertise their products.   Freedom of opinion is a necessity in a democratic society in that it can make the authorities and science discover problems of public health.         The Commission finds that this complaint raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits.   The case cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the       merits of the case.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber