CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 12 juin 1979

.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 }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention");   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged by Miss Pat Arrowsmith against the United Kingdom (No. 7050/75);   Whereas on 5 December 1978 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas in her application introduced on 2 June 1975, the applicant complained that her conviction and sentence under Sections 1 and 2 of the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934 interfered with her right to liberty contrary to Article 5 (art. 5) of the Convention, her right to manifest her pacifist beliefs contrary to Article 9 (art. 9), her right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 (art. 10), and that the 1934 Act discriminated against persons holding pacifist opinions, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 (art. 14+9, art. 14+10) of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application admissible on 16 May 1977, expressed in its report, adopted on 12 October 1978, unanimously the opinion that Articles 5 and 9 (art. 5, art. 9) of the Convention had not been violated, by 11 votes to 1 that the restriction imposed on the applicant's right to freedom of expression was justified under Article 10, paragraph 2 (art. 10-2), of the Convention and by 11 votes with 1 abstention that the case did not disclose a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with either Article 9 or 10 (art. 14+9, art. 14+10) of the Convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention,   Decides that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.