CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 avril 1997

.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                            SECOND CHAMBER                      Application No. 25405/94                           Alois Schöpfer                               against                             Switzerland                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          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. 16-34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 16-33). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        B.    Relevant domestic law           (para. 34). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 35-57) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        A.    Complaint declared admissible           (para. 35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        B.    Point at issue           (para. 36). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9        C.    Article 10 of the Convention           (paras. 37-56). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9             CONCLUSION           (para. 57). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12   DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE, MM. A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK, J.-C. SOYER, H. DANELIUS, M.A. NOWICKI AND J. MUCHA . . . . 13   APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE           ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . 15   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 1953, is a lawyer practising in Lucerne, Switzerland.   3.    The application is directed against Switzerland.   The respondent Government are represented by Mr Philippe Boillat, Head of the European Law and International Affairs Section of the Federal Office of Justice, Agent.   4.    The case concerns the disciplinary sanction of a fine imposed on the applicant who, as a lawyer, complained at a press conference about the unlawful detention of his client.   The applicant invokes Article 10 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 11 August 1994 and registered on 11 October 1994.   6.    On 29 November 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 20 February 1996. The applicant replied on 30 April 1996.   8.    On 4 September 1996 the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 17 September 1996 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. However, no further submissions were made.   10.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (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 (Second Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, 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   12.   The text of this Report was adopted on 9 April 1997 by the Commission 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.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   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 was acting as counsel for S. who was remanded in custody in the District Prison of Hochdorf in the Canton of Lucerne on suspicion of having committed various financial offences.   17.   On 6 November 1992 S.'s wife informed the applicant that the two District Registrars (Amtsschreiber) of the Hochdorf District Office (Amststatthalteramt) had urged her to find another lawyer for her husband if the latter wanted to be released from detention.   18.   In view thereof and of other alleged occurrences the applicant held a press conference in his office in Lucerne on 9 November 1992. He stated inter alia that for years at the Hochdorf District Office the laws of the Canton of Lucerne and human rights were being breached to the highest degree (werden sowohl die Luzerner Gesetze als auch die Menschenrechte in höchstem Grade verletzt, und zwar schon seit Jahren).   19.   On 10 November 1992 the newspaper "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten" (LNN) printed the following article on p. 25:   <Translation>        Former member of parliament of the Christian Popular Party (CVP)      demands investigation against the Hochdorf District Office.        "I shall no longer let myself be fooled by these gentlemen"        The former CVP member of parliament levels serious charges against the      Hochdorf District Office.             "I've had enough", complains (the applicant), "of being fooled by      the gentlemen of the Hochdorf District Office.   I have no other means      left than going to the press."   The former CVP member of parliament was      prompted to take the unusual step of approaching the public during      pending proceedings on account of a case entrusted to him as a lawyer      in mid-October.   At that time his client had already been remanded in      custody for a month at Hochdorf District Prison.        Detained without a warrant of arrest             The 20 year old father of a daughter of one and a half year was      arrested on 18 August together with his brother on account of stealing      a car radio and clothes; he was released after having admitted the      offences.   When on 15 September he wanted to inquire at the Lucerne      Cantonal Police about his brother's situation, he was again immediately      arrested.             "When I inquired at the Hochdorf District Office about the      warrant of arrest", (the applicant) remembers, "I was told that the      warrant had been issued orally"; (the applicant) regards this as a      clear breach of the cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure which states in      Section 82: "The arrest is undertaken by the police duly authorised by      a written warrant of arrest."             When faced with this reproach, the Hochdorf District Officer H.B.      remains buttoned up: "With me nobody is arrested without a written      warrant of arrest.   I cannot say more while the proceedings are      pending."   On the other hand, (the applicant) no longer intends to      remain silent; he has been asked by the accused's wife to represent      him: "His wife came to me because the officially appointed lawyer had      failed to contact his client even though he had already been remanded      in custody during six weeks."             (The applicant) immediately contacted the officially appointed      counsel who then withdrew from the case.   However, the Hochdorf      District Office did not want (the applicant) as new counsel and refused      his request on 29 October on the ground that there were no reasons to      dismiss the previous lawyer.   He was, however, free privately to      represent his client.        (The applicant) as a ground for detention?             (The applicant) finally had enough when the accused's wife last      Friday informed him that the two District Registrars Th.B. and B.B. had      advised her not to continue collaboration with him.   "They told me",      the wife confirms to the LNN, "that my husband would not be released      from detention as long as (the applicant) was his defence lawyer."      Th.B. will have nothing to do with that: "That's ridiculous.   I never      said anything like that.   B.B. can confirm that.   He was present when      I spoke with the wife."             (The applicant) is not satisfied by that: "I demand that the      District Officer and the District Registrars immediately step down and      that a neutral Commission from another Canton carefully examine the      matter."   <German>        Ehemaliger CVP-Grossrat verlangt Untersuchung gegen Amtsstatthalteramt      Hochdorf.        "Ich lasse mich von diesen Herren nicht länger für dumm verkaufen"        Der ehemalige CVP-Grossrat erhebt schwere Vorwürfe gegen das      Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf.        "Ich habe es satt", wettert (der Beschwerdeführer), "mich von den      Herren vom Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf für dumm verkaufen zu lassen.      Deshalb bleibt mir nur noch der Weg über die Presse."   Bewogen zu dem      ungewöhnlichen Schritt, während eines laufenden Verfahrens an die      Öffentlichkeit zu gelangen, hat den ehemaligen CVP-Grossrat ein Fall,      mit dem er als Anwalt Mitte Oktober betraut wurde.   Zu diesem Zeitpunkt      sass sein Klient bereits seit einem Monat im Hochdorfer      Untersuchungsgefängnis.        Ohne Haftbefehl festgenommen             Der 20jährige Vater einer anderthalbjährigen Tochter war am      18. August zusammen mit seinem Bruder wegen Diebstahls von Autoradios      und Kleidern verhaftet und nach einem Geständnis wieder freigelassen      worden.   Als er sich am 15. September auf der Kantonspolizei Luzern      nach dem Befinden seines Bruders erkundigen wollte, wurde er      unverzüglich wieder festgenommen.             "Als ich auf dem Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf nach dem Haftbefehl      fragte, wurde mir mitgeteilt, dieser sei ihm mündlich eröffnet worden",      erinnert sich (der Beschwerdeführer), der das Vorgehen der Polizei als      eine klare Verletzung der kantonalen Strafprozessordnung betrachtet,      die im Paragraph 82 vorschreibt:   "Die Verhaftung wird von der Polizei      vollzogen, die sich durch einen schriftlichen Haftbefehl auszuweisen      hat."             Auf diesen Vorwurf angesprochen, gibt sich Hochdorfs      Amtsstatthalter H.B. zugeknöpft: "Bei mir wird niemand ohne      schriftlichen Haftbefehl festgenommen.   Mehr kann ich zu einem      laufenden Verfahren nicht sagen."   Nicht länger schweigen will dagegen      (der Beschwerdeführer), der von der Frau des Angeschuldigten gebeten      wurde, ihren Mann zu verteidigen: "Die Frau kam zu mir, weil der      amtliche Verteidiger noch keinen Kontakt mit seinem Klienten      aufgenommen hatte, obwohl er seit sechs Wochen in Untersuchungshaft      sass."             (Der Beschwerdeführer) setzte sich umgehend mit dem amtlichen      Verteidiger in Verbindung, der ihm den Fall abtrat.   Das      Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf wollte dagegen (den Beschwerdeführer) nicht      als neuen amtlichen Verteidiger und lehnte sein Gesuch am 29. Oktober      mit der Begründung ab, es bestände keine Veranlassung, den bisherigen      Rechtsanwalt von seinem Amt zu entbinden.   Es stünde ihm jedoch frei,      den Klienten privat zu verteidigen.        (Der Beschwerdeführer) als Haftgrund?             Der Kragen platzte (dem Beschwerdeführer), als ihm die Frau des      Angeklagten am letzten Freitag mitteilte, die beiden Amtsschreiber      Th.B. und B.B. hätten ihr von einer weiteren Zusammenarbeit mit ihm      abgeraten.   "Sie erklärten mir",   bestätigt die Frau gegenüber der LNN,      "dass mein Mann nicht aus der Haft entlassen werde, solange (der      Beschwerdeführer) sein Verteidiger sei."   Davon will Th.B. allerdings      nichts wissen:   "Das ist doch lächerlich.   So etwas habe ich nie      gesagt.   Das kann B.B. bestätigen.   Er war dabei, als ich mit der Frau      gesprochen habe."             (Der Beschwerdeführer) will den Vorfall nicht auf sich beruhen      lassen: "Ich verlange, dass unverzüglich der Amtsstatthalter und die      Schreiber in Ausstand treten und eine neutrale ausserkantonale      Kommission die Angelegenheit unter die Lupe nimmt."   20.   Inserted into this text was the further article:   <Translation>        "REPROACHES             It is not the first time that substantial charges are levelled      against the Hochdorf District Office.   Already in connection with the      conviction of the Debt Execution Officer H.S. of Rothenburg      investigations were undertaken against District Officer H.B.   He was      convicted by the Lucerne District Court and sentenced to a fine of      400 CHF on account of a breach of official secrets.   Although the Court      of Appeal also found that objectively he had committed the offence,      H.B. was acquitted."   <German>        "VORWÜRFE             Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass gegen das Amtsstatthalteramt      Hochdorf massive Vorwürfe erhoben werden.   Schon im Zusammenhang mit      der Verurteilung des Rothenburger Betreibungsbeamten H.S. wurde gegen      Amtsstatthalter H.B. ermittelt.   Er wurde vom Amtsgericht Luzern wegen      Verletzung des Amtsgeheimnisses zu einer Busse von 400 Franken      verurteilt.   Obwohl auch das Obergericht zum Schluss kam, der objektive      Tatbestand sei erfüllt, wurde H.B. freigesprochen."   21.   Two photographs were included, one with the Hochdorf District Office, the other depicting District Officer H.B. and accompanied by the text: "with me nobody is detained without a written warrant of arrest" ("bei mir wird niemand ohne schriftlichen Haftbefehl festgehalten").   22.   Another newspaper, the "Luzerner Zeitung", also ran on 10 November 1992 an article on the press conference with the headline "Young man detained without warrant of arrest?   Lucerne lawyer accuses the Hochdorf District Office of breaching the law" ("Junger Mann ohne Haftbefehl verhaftet?   Luzerner Anwalt wirft Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf Rechtsverletzungen vor").   23.   On 10 November 1992 the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) of the Canton of Lucerne issued a reply according to which the accused person concerned had been arrested in accordance with the law, and the applicant had failed to file an appeal against the refusal to appoint him as official defence counsel.   This reply was published in the press on 11 November 1992.   24.   On 13 November 1992 the Luzerner Zeitung summarised a press communiqué issued by the applicant in reply to the Public Prosecutor's statement.   According to the applicant, S.'s detention was in breach, inter alia, of Convention rights.   The applicant also cited the letter of another lawyer St. according to which "the situation in Hochdorf is far from satisfactory ...   It is a catastrophe that the organs of justice know about the circumstances in Hochdorf and also covertly discuss them" ("die Zustände in Hochdorf (sind) alles andere als erfreulich ...   Katastrophal ist ja auch, dass man bei der Justiz die Verhältnisse kennt und hinter vorgehaltener Hand auch darüber diskutiert").   25.   According to an article in the Luzerner Zeitung of 19 November 1992 the Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsbehörde) of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne had written to the applicant, asking him for explanations; the applicant had replied, inter alia, by stating that he had acted lawfully and in the interests of his client.   26.   Meanwhile, the applicant filed a request for S.'s release from detention on remand.   On 16 November 1992 the Hochdorf District Officer dismissed the request.   27.   Against this decision the applicant filed an appeal which the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed on 30 November 1992.   The Court of Appeal noted, however, that S., after his arrest, had incorrectly been brought before the District Registrar instead of the District Officer who alone qualified as a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.   For this reason, the Court of Appeal ordered the decision to be brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office as the District Officer's supervisory authority.   28.   On 21 December 1992 the Supervisory Board of the Bar instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.   29.   On 15 March 1993 the Lawyers' Supervisory Board imposed, with reference to Section 13 of the Statute of the Bar (Anwaltsgesetz; see below, Relevant domestic law) of the Canton of Lucerne a fine of 500 Swiss Francs (CHF) on the applicant on account of professional misconduct (Verletzung von Berufs- und Standespflichten).   30.   In its decision the Supervisory Board found in particular that the applicant had failed first to raise the charges at issue before the Public Prosecutor's Office or the Court of Appeal.   He had thus not demonstrated the discretion called for in pending proceedings; he had also demonstrated that in fact he wanted to obtain publicity.   By not filing an appeal he had also implied that the appeal bodies in the Canton of Lucerne were not trustworthy.   On the whole the applicant's conduct called in question the reputation of the judiciary in the Canton of Lucerne.   31.   The applicant's public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 21 April 1994.   32.   In its decision, the Court considered that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression was based on Section 12 of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne (see below, Relevant domestic law).   It also considered that lawyers had substantial freedom (weitgehende Freiheit) to criticise the judiciary as long as the criticism was duly expressed in the procedural forms.   On the other hand, lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the judiciary.   When examining whether the interference occurred in the public interest, it had to be considered how clear the alleged breaches of the law were; whether pending proceedings could be influenced; whether there was the possibility of introducing legal remedies; and in what manner the charges were raised.   The decision continues:   <Translation>        "It is true that one of the complaints - the applicant having      contested a possible practice of the District Office - was      subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of      Lucerne.   Contrary to the applicant's submissions, the      Supervisory Board considered this in the contested decision.      Apart from these reasons the charges raised in public were not      well-founded; they could also have influenced pending      proceedings. ...   Furthermore the Supervisory Board reproached      the applicant for having chosen the wrong tone in respect of a      number of complaints at the press conference.   This was also      explained in detail.   It further alleged that the applicant had      not stated the truth when he said that he had no other means left      than going to the press.   Yet at that time he had not even      attempted to obtain a reply by filing a regular remedy with the      statutory appeal organs.   He could have been expected to proceed      in this manner, and subsequently he indeed proceeded along these      lines.   In respect of all these points of view the applicant does      not present any convincing arguments ..."   <German>        "Es trifft zwar zu, dass eine der entsprechenden Rügen, mit      welcher der Beschwerdeführer eine möglicherweise gängige Praxis      des Amtsstatthalteramts angefochten hatte, später vom Obergericht      des Kantons Luzern geschützt wurde.   Entgegen dem Vorbringen des      Beschwerdeführers hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dies im angefochtenen      Entscheid jedoch berücksichtigt.   Abgesehen davon erwiesen sich      die öffentlich erhobenen Vorwürfe, die im übrigen geeignet waren,      ein hängiges Verfahren zu beeinflussen, nicht als berechtigt. ...      Weiter hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dem Beschwerdeführer angelastet,      dass er sich an der Presseorientierung bei mehreren seiner      Formulierungen im Ton vergriffen habe.   Sie hat dies im einzelnen      auch begründet.   Sie hat dem Beschwerdeführer ferner insofern      Wahrheitswidrigkeit vorgeworfen, als er die Anrufung der Presse      dieser gegenüber als letzten Weg bezeichnet hatte, obwohl er im      damaligen Zeitpunkt noch nicht einmal versucht hatte, sich auf      dem ordentlichen Weg bei den gesetzlichen Rechtsmittelinstanzen      Gehör zu verschaffen.   Dieser Weg, den er nachträglich ja auch      beschritten hat, war ihm ohne weiteres zumutbar. Gegen alle diese      Gesichtspunkte bringt der Beschwerdeführer keine überzeugenden      Argumente vor."   33.   The Court found that the measure had occurred in the public interest and that the sanction was proportionate in that it was at the lower end of the scale of fines.   B.    Relevant domestic law   34.   According to S. 12 para. 1 of the Statute of the Bar (Anwaltsgesetz) of the Canton of Lucerne, the Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsbehörde) may impose disciplinary sanctions on lawyers in cases of a breach of professional ethics.   S. 13 provides that the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned with an admonition, a fine of up to 5,000 CHF, or with suspension from his professional activities.   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaint declared admissible   35.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him breached his right to freedom of expression.   B.    Point at issue   36.   The point at issue is, therefore, whether there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   C.    Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   37.   The applicant complains that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him breaches his right under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention to freedom of expression.   38.   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.   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."   39.   The applicant stresses that what he told the journalists was true.   He had criticised violations of human rights at the Hochdorf District office which did in fact occur, as the judgment of the Lucerne Court of Appeal had found.   He furthermore alleges that it would not have been effective to try ordinary remedies.   The only way for him to criticise and remedy the situation was to inform the public via the press.   40.   The applicant submits that the accused S. had been in custody for six weeks without seeing a judicial officer; he had also not been represented by a lawyer.   When the applicant eventually became his lawyer, the wife of the detainee was told that he would remain in custody as long as he was represented by the applicant.   41.   The respondent Government submit that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression complied with the conditions under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   The legal basis of the measure was Article 12 (Art. 12) of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne.   Moreover, the interference served the purpose of "the protection of ... the rights of others" and of "maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   42.   The Government also submit that the measure was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   They refer to the Federal Court's case-law according to which it may be in the public interest to inform the public of a violation of human rights.   However, when there are conflicting interests to be weighed, a number of different elements must be taken into consideration.   These include the degree to which other interests are affected, e.g. a possible interference with proceedings which are pending, the possibility of alternative ways to remedy the problem or the way in which the complaints have been presented.   43.   The Government contend that in the present case both the moment and the manner of presenting the complaints were badly chosen by the applicant.   His statement did not only bring forward very serious accusations but it was also resentful and aggressive and, with one exception, wrong.   Moreover, the applicant had not introduced any judicial remedies before giving his press conference.   Finally, the sanction imposed, a fine of 500 CHF, was moderate.   44.   The Commission considers that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the applicant constituted an interference with his rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   The Commission must therefore examine whether this interference was justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   45.   The Commission observes that the Lucerne authorities, when imposing the disciplinary sanction of a fine of 500 CHF on the applicant, relied on SS. 12 and 13 of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne.   According to these provisions, the Supervisory Board of the Bar will sanction breaches of professional misconduct. The Board may impose disciplinary penalties of up to a fine of 5,000 CHF or suspend the lawyer from his professional activities.   46.   The interference was therefore "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   47.   Moreover, as the Federal Court pointed out in its decision of 21 April 1994, the interference aimed at maintaining "the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of this provision.   48.   In examining whether the measure was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of   the essential foundations of a democratic society; subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.   Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 (Art. 10), is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established (see Eur. Court HR, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, para. 63; Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, para. 28).   49.   The right to freedom of expression of lawyers raises particular issues.   Their special status gives them a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts.   Such a position explains the usual restrictions on the conduct of members of the Bar, and also the monitoring and supervisory powers vested in Bar councils.   Because of their direct, continuous contact with their members, the Bar authorities and the country's courts are in a better position to determine how, at a given time, the right balance can be struck between the various interests involved, namely the requirements of the proper administration of justice, and the dignity of the profession (see Eur. Court HR, Casado Coca v. Spain judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 21, paras. 54 and 55).   50.   In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant was not sanctioned for expressing his opinion as such.   Rather, as the Federal Court stated in its decision of 21 April 1994, lawyers had a substantial freedom to criticise the judiciary as long as the criticism was duly put forward in the procedural forms.   In particular, lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the judiciary (see above, para. 32).   51.   The Swiss authorities also considered that the applicant had chosen the wrong tone in respect of a number of his statements.   In the Commission's opinion, the applicant exaggerated his complaints, for instance, when stating that he was being "fooled" by the District Office, or that for years the Hochdorf District Office had been breaching the laws of the Canton of Lucerne and human rights to the highest degree (see above, paras. 18 et seq.).   52.   The Commission further observes that the applicant failed first to employ the regular remedies available to him in order to raise his complaints which he ventilated at the press conference.   He has not argued that these remedies would have been fruitless.   Indeed, after the applicant held the press conference he did introduce appeal proceedings, and in fact one of his complaints was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne on 30 November 1992 (see above, para. 27).   53.   Moreover, the applicant raised the allegations while criminal proceedings were pending against his client.   He could thus be seen as attempting to put pressure on the Hochdorf investigating authorities, and as undermining the independence of the judiciary in general.   54.   Finally, the Commission considers that the fine of 500 CHF was at the lower end of the scale envisaged in S. 13 of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne (see above, para. 34).   55.   Taking into account the margin of appreciation which is left to Contracting States in such circumstances (see Eur. Court HR, Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 25, para. 39), and also the fact that the exercise of freedom of expression "carries with it duties and responsibilities", the Commission does not find that the Swiss authorities, when imposing the disciplinary sanction on the applicant, acted unreasonably in balancing the various interests involved.   56.   The Commission therefore considers that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression was not in violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in that it could reasonably be considered "necessary in a democratic society ... for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of this provision.        CONCLUSION   57.   The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 6, that in the present case there has been no violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber                                                    (Or. English)      DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE, MM. A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK,       J.-C. SOYER, H. DANELIUS, M.A. NOWICKI AND J. MUCHA        We agree with the majority that the interference with the applicant's rights under Article 10 para. 1 of the Convention was "prescribed by law" and aimed at maintaining "the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention.        However, we disagree as to whether the measure was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention.        It is true that in the present case the Federal Court found in its decision of 21 April 1994 that lawyers had a substantial freedom to criticise the judiciary as long as the criticism was duly put forward in the procedural forms.   The Court noted in particular that lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the judiciary, and that the applicant could have been expected to obtain a reply by first filing a regular remedy with the statutory appeal organs (see above, para. 32).        However, the applicant did pursue his criticism in the procedural forms, in particular by filing an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne (see above, para. 27).   Nevertheless, in our opinion it is legitimate for a lawyer to employ various means to put forward his client's case, and the applicant did not act unlawfully when deciding to hold a press conference.        The applicant, a former member of parliament, believed that he had come across a problem of general importance.   With his press conference, he aimed at bringing about a public debate on, and possibly a speedy reaction to, the situation at the Hochdorf District Office, even while criminal proceedings were pending against his client.        In our opinion, it cannot be said that the applicant's concerns about the situation at the Hochdorf District Office were unreasonable. Upon his appeal, one of his complaints was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne on 30 November 1992 (see above, para. 27).   Moreover, the "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten" reported on its own accord about other substantial charges which had previously been levelled against one of the District Officers concerned (see above, para. 20).        The language employed by the applicant at the press conference, although polemic, did not in our view go beyond the limits of acceptable criticism.   Thus, according to the newspaper "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten", he complained that he would "no longer let (himself) be fooled by these gentlemen" and that he "(had) had enough". He claimed that the District Registrars had breached the Code of Criminal Procedure, demanding that they immediately step down and a neutral commission examine the matter (see above, paras. 19 et seq.). Another newspaper, the "Luzerner Zeitung", stated that the applicant "(had accused) the Hochdorf District Office of breaching the law" (see above, para. 22).        While it is true that Article 10 of the Convention leaves a margin of appreciation to Contracting States in such circumstances (see Eur. Court HR, Lingens v. Austria judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 25, para. 39), we consider that freedom of expression is of special importance for a free debate on matters of public importance, such as the operation of the administration of justice (see Eur. Court HR, Sunday Times v. United Kingdom judgment of 27 October 1978, Series A no. 30, p. 40, para. 65).        In our opinion, the disciplinary measure complained of was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and, accordingly, was not "necessary in a democratic society ... for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the Convention.        We conclude, therefore, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.