[неофициальный перевод]
ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СУД ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
СУДЕБНОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ
ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ "ПЛАТФОРМА "ВРАЧИ ЗА ЖИЗНЬ" (PLATTFORM
"{ARTZE FUR} <*> DAS LEBEN") ПРОТИВ АВСТРИИ
(Страсбург, 21 июня 1988 года)
(Извлечение)
КРАТКОЕ НЕОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ ДЕЛА
A. Основные факты
В декабре 1980 г. ассоциация врачей, выступающих против
легализации абортов, "Платформа "Врачи за жизнь", приняла решение
провести демонстрацию в Штадль-Паура. Получив уведомление,
предписываемое Законом о собраниях, соответствующие органы власти
разрешили демонстрацию и предприняли шаги по размещению полиции
вдоль выбранного маршрута.
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке
набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Опасаясь столкновения со сторонниками свободы абортов и не
желая помешать службе в близлежащей церкви, организаторы
демонстрации перед самым началом шествия решили изменить
первоначально запланированный маршрут. Полицейские власти не
возражали, хотя и предупреждали, что охрана нового маршрута
представляется сложной. В конечном итоге демонстрация была сорвана
ее противниками, которые выкрикивали лозунги, бросали яйца и куски
дерна в участников марша. Вмешательство полиции сводилось к тому,
что она разделила враждующие группы, когда страсти так накалились,
что возникла опасность физического насилия.
Дисциплинарная жалоба, поданная ассоциацией - заявителем на
должностных лиц полиции, не привела к применению к этим лицам
каких-либо дисциплинарных мер. Ассоциация - заявитель обратилась с
жалобой в Конституционный суд, утверждая, что бездействие властей
привело к нарушению свободы собраний и совершения религиозных
обрядов, которая гарантируется Конституцией Австрии. Решением от
1 марта 1982 г. Суд признал ее неприемлемой на том основании, что
в ней не оспаривалось какое-либо "решение" или акт применения мер
прямого административного принуждения в смысле статьи 144
Конституции. Впоследствии прокуратура прекратила уголовное
разбирательство, официально возбужденное против ряда противников
демонстрации.
Первого мая 1982 г. на площади перед собором в Зальцбурге
"Платформа" провела вторую демонстрацию. Она также была сорвана
действиями противников, которых полиция рассеяла лишь в самом
конце, и никакого разбирательства после этих инцидентов не
последовало.
B. Разбирательство в Комиссии по правам человека
17 октября 1984 г. Комиссия признала жалобу ассоциации, в
которой она утверждала, что были нарушены статья 9 Конвенции
(свобода мысли, совести и религии), статья 10 (свобода выражения
мнений), статья 11 (свобода собраний и ассоциаций) и статья 13
(право на средства правовой защиты), приемлемой на основании
статьи 13 Конвенции, но отклонила жалобы на основании статей 9, 10
и 11.
В своем докладе от 12 марта 1987 г. Комиссия единогласно
пришла к выводу, что имело место нарушение статьи 13.
ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ИЗ СУДЕБНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
24. Ассоциация - заявитель утверждала, что Австрия не
предоставила какое-либо эффективное средство правовой защиты по ее
жалобе на основании статьи 11; она ссылалась на статью 13, которая
предусматривает следующее:
"Каждый человек, чьи права и свободы, признанные в настоящей
Конвенции, нарушены, имеет право на эффективные средства правовой
защиты перед государственными органами даже в том случае, если
такое нарушение было совершено лицами, действовавшими в
официальном качестве".
25. Основной довод Правительства заключался в том, что
статья 13 применяется только в тех случаях, когда нарушено
существенное положение Конвенции. В качестве доказательства был
процитирован французский текст, включающий слова "ont ete violes",
что, по мнению Правительства, более ясно и определенно, чем
соответствующее английское выражение "are violated".
Суд не согласился с этим доводом. В соответствии с судебной
практикой статья 13 гарантирует эффективное средство правовой
защиты перед компетентной государственной инстанцией каждому, кто
обоснованно утверждает, что является жертвой нарушения прав и
свобод, защищаемых Конвенцией; любая другая интерпретация делает
статью бессмысленной (см. Решение по делу Бойла и Райса от
27 апреля 1988 г. Серия A, т. 131, с. 23, п. 52).
26. Хотя Комиссия посчитала, что жалоба на основании статьи 11
неприемлема как явно необоснованная, она сочла, что жалоба
приемлема на основании статьи 13. Правительство посчитало
нелогичным объявить одну и ту же жалобу явно необоснованной по
существенному условию и все же имеющей основания по статье 13.
27. Суд не намеревается давать абстрактные определения понятию
"приемлемость". Для того, чтобы определить, применима ли статья 13
в данном случае, Суду достаточно установить с учетом фактов дела и
существа юридических проблем, поднятых в связи с данным делом,
имеет ли основания жалоба о том, что не были выполнены требования
статьи 11, хотя Комиссия и отвергла ее. Решение Комиссии о
приемлемости жалобы по статье 13 может дать Суду полезные указания
в отношении обоснованности этой жалобы (см. вышеупомянутое Решение
по делу Бойла и Райса, п. 54 - 55).
28. Во время разбирательства в Комиссии представители
"Платформы" утверждали, что австрийские власти, не предприняв
практических шагов по обеспечению беспрепятственного проведения
демонстрации, пренебрегли истинным значением свободы собраний.
29. По утверждению Правительства, статья 11 не порождает
обязанности государства принимать меры по защите демонстраций.
Свобода мирных собраний, закрепленная в статье 12 Основного Закона
Австрии 1867 г., главным образом была направлена на защиту лица от
прямого вмешательства государства. В отличие от некоторых других
положений Конвенции и Конституции Австрии статья 11 не
распространяется на отношения между физическими лицами. Во всяком
случае выбор средств, которые можно было использовать в данной
ситуации, оставался на усмотрении государства.
30. В своем Решении от 17 октября 1985 г. о приемлемости
жалобы Комиссия подробно рассмотрела вопрос, подразумевает ли
статья 11 требование к государству защищать демонстрации от тех,
кто желает помешать их проведению или сорвать их. Комиссия
ответила на этот вопрос положительно.
31. Суд не призван развивать общую теорию об обязательствах
позитивного характера, вытекающих из Конвенции, но, прежде чем
установить, обоснованна ли жалоба ассоциации - заявителя, он
должен дать толкование статьи 11.
32. Любая демонстрация может раздражать или оскорблять тех,
кто выступает против идей или требований, в поддержку которых она
проводится. Однако у участников демонстрации должна быть тем не
менее возможность проводить ее без опасений подвергнуться
физическому насилию со стороны своих противников; такие опасения
могли бы воспрепятствовать ассоциациям и иным группам, разделяющим
общие идеи или интересы, открыто выражать свое мнение по самым
актуальным вопросам, затрагивающим общество. В демократическом
обществе право на проведение контрдемонстрации не может выливаться
в ограничение осуществления права на демонстрацию. Исходя из
этого, обеспечение истинной, эффективной свободы проведения мирных
собраний не может сводиться лишь к обязанности государства
воздерживаться от вмешательства: чисто негативная концепция роли
государства противоречит предмету и цели статьи 11. Подобно
статье 8, статья 11 требует порой совершения позитивных действий,
при необходимости даже в области отношений между физическими
лицами (см. mutatis mutandis Решение по делу X и Y против
Нидерландов от 26 марта 1985 г. Серия A, т. 91, с. 11, п. 23).
33. Соглашаясь с Правительством и Комиссией, Суд пришел к
выводу, что австрийское право знает меры позитивного характера по
защите демонстраций. Например, статьи 284 и 285 Уголовного кодекса
запрещают лицу создавать помехи, разгонять или срывать собрание,
проведение которого не запрещено; статьи 6, 13 и 14(2) Закона о
собраниях, наделяющие власти полномочиями в определенных случаях
запрещать, прекращать или рассеивать собрание, используя силу,
применимы к организации контрдемонстраций.
34. Хотя в обязанности государств - участников Конвенции и
входит принятие разумных и надлежащих мер для обеспечения мирного
характера разрешенных законом демонстраций, они не могут дать
абсолютных гарантий в этом отношении, хотя и располагают широким
полем усмотрения при выборе такого рода мер (см. mutatis mutandis
Решения по делу Абдулазиза, Кабалеса и Балкандали от 28 мая
1985 г. Серия A, т. 94, с. 33 - 34, п. 67, и по делу Риса от
17 октября 1986 г. Серия A, т. 106, с. 14 - 15, п. 35 - 37). В
этой области статья 11 Конвенции обязывает государства принимать
меры, но не обязывает их получать определенные результаты.
35. По утверждению заявителя, полиция во время проведения
каждой из упомянутых двух демонстраций вела себя совершенно
пассивно. Правительство и Комиссия не согласились; по их мнению, в
условиях отсутствия каких-либо серьезных эксцессов прямое
вмешательство не было оправданно и неизбежно спровоцировало бы
акты физического насилия.
36. Суд не оценивал уместность или эффективность действий
полиции в этих случаях, а лишь определил, была ли обоснована
жалоба на то, что соответствующие власти не приняли необходимых
мер.
37. Что касается инцидентов в Штадль-Паура 28 декабря 1980 г.,
то необходимо прежде всего отметить, что были запрещены обе
демонстрации, которые планировались сторонниками свободы абортов
(о чем было подано уведомление властям 30 ноября) и которые должны
были проводиться одновременно и в том же месте, что и демонстрация
"Платформы". Вдоль первоначально запланированного пути следования
демонстрации было размещено большое количество полицейских сил,
как в форме, так и в штатской одежде, и представители полиции не
отказывались обеспечивать защиту демонстрации, даже когда,
несмотря на возражения полиции, ассоциация - заявитель приняла
решение об изменении маршрута. И наконец, не был причинен ущерб и
не произошло никаких серьезных столкновений; участники
контрдемонстрации выкрикивали лозунги, махали плакатами, бросали
яйца и куски дерна, что не мешало продвижению процессии и
завершению проводившейся на открытом воздухе религиозной службы;
когда страсти накалились до такой степени, что создалась угроза
проявления насилия специальные подразделения по борьбе с
беспорядками развели враждующие группировки.
38. Что касается демонстрации в Зальцбурге, то для ее
проведения организаторы избрали 1 мая, день традиционного
социалистического марша, который пришлось отменить, т.к. на
площадь перед собором претендовала ассоциация - заявитель,
подавшая заявление раньше. Более того, для того чтобы разделить
участников и их противников и предотвратить опасность
столкновения, на место действия было направлено сто полицейских;
они очистили и оцепили площадь, чтобы не допустить никаких помех
религиозной церемонии.
39. Таким образом, совершенно очевидно, что австрийские власти
приняли все разумные и надлежащие меры для защиты демонстрантов.
Таким образом, ничто в настоящем деле не подтверждает
нарушения статьи 11; в данном случае статья 13 не применима.
ПО ЭТИМ ОСНОВАНИЯМ СУД ЕДИНОГЛАСНО
Постановил, что нарушение статьи 13 места не имело.
Совершено на английском и французском языках и оглашено во
Дворце прав человека в Страсбурге 21 июня 1988 г.
Председатель
Рольф РИССДАЛ
Грефье
Марк-Андре ЭЙССЕН
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF PLATTFORM "{ARZTE FUR} DAS LEBEN"
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 21.VI.1988)
In the case of Plattform "{Arzte fur} das Leben" <1>,
--------------------------------
<1> Note by the registrar: The case is
numbered 5/1987/128/179. The second figure indicates the year in
which the case was referred to the Court and the first figure its
place on the list of cases referred in that year; the last two
figures indicate, respectively, the case's order on the list of
cases and of originating applications (to the Commission) referred
to the Court since its creation.
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance
with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the
relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed
of the following judges:
Mr. R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr. F. {Golcuklu},
Mr. F. Matscher,
Mr. J. Pinheiro Farinha,
Mr. R. Macdonald,
Mr. A. Spielmann,
Mr. J. A. Carrillo Salcedo,
and also of Mr. M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H. Petzold,
Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March and 25 May 1988,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European
Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 14 May 1987,
within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 з 1 and
Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated
in an application (no. 10126/82) against Austria lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an association called
Plattform "{Arzte fur} das Leben" ("Doctors for the right to life"
Campaign, "Plattform") on 13 September 1982.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to Austria's declaration recognising the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The
purpose of the request was to obtain a decision from the Court as
to whether or not the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the
respondent State of its obligations under Article 13 (art. 13) of
the Convention.
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
з 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant association stated
that it wished to take part in the proceedings pending before the
Court and designated the lawyer who would represent it (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included ex
officio Mr. F. Matscher, the elected judge of Austrian nationality
(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr. R. Ryssdal, the
President of the Court (Rule 21 з 3 (b)). On 23 May 1987, in the
presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court drew by lot
the names of the other five members, namely Mr. J. Pinheiro
Farinha, Mr. R. Macdonald, Mr. J. Gersing, Mr. A. Spielmann and
Mr. A.M. Donner (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21
з 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Mr. F. {Golcuklu} and
Mr. J.A. Carrillo Salcedo, substitute judges, replaced Mr. Donner
and Mr. Gersing, who were unable to attend (Rules 22 з 1 and 24
з 1).
4. On 20 June 1987, the President gave the applicant
association's counsel leave to use the German language (Rule 27
з 3).
5. Having assumed the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 з 5) and, after consulting - through the Registrar - the
Agent of the Austrian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate
of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicant association,
Mr. Ryssdal
(a) decided on 8 July 1987 that there was no need at that
stage to arrange for written pleadings to be filed (Rule 37 з 1);
(b) directed on 3 November 1987 that the oral proceedings
should commence on 21 March 1988 (Rule 38).
6. On 16 September 1987, the Registrar received the applicant
association's claims under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention.
7. The hearing was held in public in the Human Rights
Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a
preparatory meeting immediately beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr. H. {Turk}, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Agent,
Mr. W. Okresek, Federal Chancellery,
Mr. A. Holzhammer, Federal Ministry of the Interior, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr. G. Batliner, Delegate,
(c) for the applicant association Mr. A. Adam, Rechtsanwalt,
Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr. {Turk} and Mr. Okresek for
the Government, by Mr. Batliner for the Commission and by Mr. Adam
for the applicant association, as well as their replies to its
questions.
AS TO THE FACTS
8. Plattform "{Arzte fur} das Leben" is an association of
doctors who are campaigning against abortion and are seeking to
bring about reform of the Austrian legislation on the matter. In
1980 and 1982 it held two demonstrations which were disrupted by
counter-demonstrators despite the presence of a large contingent
of police.
I. The demonstration at Stadl-Paura
A. Planning of the demonstration
9. The applicant association decided to hold a religious
service at Stadl-Paura Church (Upper Austria) on 28 December 1980,
after which there would be a march to the surgery of a doctor who
carried out abortions. As required under section 2 of the Assembly
Act of 1953 (see paragraph 40 of the Commission's report), it gave
notice, on 30 November, to the police authority for the district
of Wels-Land. The police made no objection and gave the
participants permission to use the public highway. The police did,
however, have to ban two other planned demonstrations, which were
announced subsequently by supporters of abortion, as these
demonstrations were to be held at the same time and in the same
place as the Plattform demonstration.
10. As the organisers feared that incidents might occur
nonetheless, they sought - shortly before the beginning of the
march - to change their plans, in consultation with the local
authorities. They gave up the idea of demonstrating outside the
doctor's surgery and decided instead to march to an altar erected
on a hillside quite a distance away from the church and hold a
religious ceremony there.
11. The police representatives pointed out to them that the
main body of the police officers had already been deployed along
the route originally planned and that because of the lie of the
land the new route was not suited to crowd control. They did not
refuse to provide protection but stated that - irrespective of the
route chosen or to be chosen - it would be impossible to prevent
counter-demonstrators from throwing eggs and disrupting both the
march and the religious service.
B. The incidents
12. During the mass, a large number of counter-demonstrators -
who, it seems, had not given the notice required under the
Assembly Act - assembled outside the church and were not dispersed
by the police. They disrupted the march to the hillside by
mingling with the marchers and shouting down their recitation of
the rosary. The same thing happened at the service celebrated in
the open air: some five hundred people attempted to interrupt it
using loudspeakers and threw eggs and clumps of grass at the
congregation.
13. At the end of the ceremony, when tempers had risen to the
point where physical violence nearly broke out, special
riot-control units - which had until then been standing by without
intervening - formed a cordon between the opposing groups, and
this enabled the procession to return to the church.
14. In a letter to the Upper Austrian Safety Authority, the
chairman of the association described the counter-demonstrators'
behaviour as "relatively peaceful": on other occasions, the
opponents of Plattform had attacked the association's members and
had assaulted policemen.
C. Remedies pursued after the demonstration
1. Remedies sought by the association itself
(a) Disciplinary complaint
15. On 21 January 1981, the applicant association lodged a
disciplinary complaint (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde - see
paragraphs 47 - 50 of the Commission's report) alleging that the
local police had failed to provide sufficient protection for the
demonstration.
The Upper Austrian Safety Authority considered that the
behaviour of the police had been irreproachable and it decided not
to take any disciplinary measures against them. It referred to the
difficulty of completely protecting an open-air demonstration from
verbal abuse and from missiles which were not likely to cause the
participants any physical harm. The Authority added that, in not
intervening, the police had been prompted by the concern to avoid
more serious trouble.
(b) Constitutional appeal
16. Plattform subsequently lodged an appeal with the
Constitutional Court (Verfassungsbeschwerde - see
paragraphs 41 - 43 of the Commission's report); in the
association's submission the local authorities' failure to act had
in the instant case allowed an infringement of the freedoms of
assembly and religious observance, both of which were guaranteed
by the Austrian Constitution.
On 11 December 1981, the Constitutional Court heard evidence
from several witnesses with a view to establishing the facts
sufficiently clearly. In a judgment on 1 March 1982, it held that
it had no jurisdiction and consequently declared the appeal
inadmissible. It noted that the applicant association's complaint
was clearly not directed against a "decision" or acts of direct
administrative coercion within the meaning of Article 144 of the
Constitution (see Official Collection of the Judgments of the
Constitutional Court, no. 9334/1982).
2. Proceedings taken officially
(a) Ordinary criminal proceedings
17. Plattform did not take any ordinary criminal proceedings
by lodging a complaint or by bringing a subsidiary private
prosecution ("Subsidiaranklage" - see paragraphs 58 - 64 of the
Commission's report).
The Upper Austrian Safety Authority and the local police,
however, opened investigation proceedings against a person or
persons unknown for disruption of a meeting. For its part, a
private organisation, the "{Osterreichische Burgerinitiative} zum
Schutz der {Menschenwurde}", lodged a complaint against one of the
counter-demonstrators, a member of parliament, alleging
obstruction of a religious ceremony and incitement to hatred under
Articles 188, 189 and 283 of the Criminal Code as well as an
offence against section 2 of the 1953 Assembly Act. Complaints
were also lodged against two other people.
The Wels public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on
1 April 1981, however, under Article 90 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(b) Administrative criminal proceedings
18. One person caught in the act of throwing eggs was
fined 1,000 Austrian schillings under section IX of the law
enacting the Administrative Proceedings Acts (see paragraph 66 of
the Commission's report).
II. The Salzburg demonstration
19. The competent police authority gave permission for a
second demonstration against abortion to be held in the cathedral
square in Salzburg on 1 May 1982. An anniversary meeting was due
to be held in the square by the Socialist Party on the same day,
but it had to be cancelled because notice of it had been given
after the applicant association had given notice of its own
meeting.
The demonstration began at 2.15 p.m. and ended with an hour of
prayers inside the cathedral.
At about 1.30 p.m. some three hundred and fifty people angrily
shouting their opposition had passed through the three archways
which provide access to the square and gathered outside the
cathedral. A hundred policemen formed a cordon around the
Plattform demonstrators to protect them from direct attack. Other
trouble was caused by sympathisers of an extreme right-wing party,
the NDP, who voiced their support for Plattform. The police asked
the association's chairman to order these people to disperse, but
without success.
In order to prevent the religious ceremony being disrupted,
the police cleared the square.
20. No proceedings were taken after these incidents, and in
view of the Constitutional Court's decision of 1 March 1982 the
applicant association considered that a second appeal would have
served no purpose.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
21. The Plattform "{Arzte fur} das Leben" association applied
to the Commission on 13 September 1982 (application no. 10126/82).
It claimed that it had not had sufficient police protection during
the demonstrations it had held on 28 December 1980 at Stadl-Paura
and on 1 May 1982 at Salzburg; it submitted that there had been a
violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11 (art. 9, art. 10, art. 11) of
the Convention. It also relied on Article 13 (art. 13), claiming
that the Austrian legal system did not provide an "effective
remedy before a national authority" to ensure the effective
exercise of the rights in question.
22. On 17 October 1985, the Commission declared inadmissible,
as being manifestly ill-founded, the complaints under Articles 9,
10, and 11 (art. 9, art. 10, art. 11); on the other hand, it
declared admissible the complaint under Article 13 (art. 13). In
its report of 12 March 1987 (Article 31) (art. 31), it unanimously
held that there had been no violation of this Article (art. 13).
The full text of the Commission's opinion, together with a
summary made by the Commission of the relevant domestic law and
practice, is reproduced as an annex to this judgment.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT
23. At the hearing on 21 March 1988, the Government requested
the Court to hold that "the provisions of Article 13 (art. 13) of
the European Convention on Human Rights [had] not been infringed
and that the facts which gave rise to the dispute accordingly
disclose[d] no violation of the Convention".
AS TO THE LAW
24. The applicant association stated that no effective remedy
was available to it in Austria for its complaint under Article 11
(art. 11); it relied on Article 13 (art. 13), which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the]
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
25. The Government's main submission was that Article 13
(art. 13) applied only where a substantive provision of the
Convention had been infringed. As evidence of this, they cited the
French text, containing the words "ont {ete violes}", which in
their view were clearer than the corresponding English terms ("are
violated").
The Court does not accept this submission. Under its case-law,
Article 13 (art. 13) secures an effective remedy before a national
"authority" to anyone claiming on arguable grounds to be the
victim of a violation of his rights and freedoms as protected in
the Convention; any other interpretation would render it
meaningless (see, as the most recent authority, the Boyle and Rice
judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, з 52).
26. Although it declared the complaint under Article 11
(art. 11) inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, the
Commission considered it arguable for the purposes of Article 13
(art. 13). The Government thought it contradictory to declare one
and the same complaint to be manifestly ill-founded under a
substantive provision and yet arguable under Article 13 (art. 13).
27. The Court does not propose to give an abstract definition
of the notion of "arguability". In order to ascertain whether
Article 13 (art. 13) was applicable in the instant case, it is
sufficient that it should determine, in the light of the facts of
the case and the nature of the legal issue or issues raised,
whether the claim that the requirements of Article 11 (art. 11)
had not been complied with was arguable notwithstanding that the
Commission dismissed it as manifestly ill-founded. The latter's
decision on admissibility may provide the Court with useful
pointers as to the arguability of the relevant claim (see the
Boyle and Rice judgment previously cited, Series A no. 131,
pp. 23 - 24, з 54 - 55).
28. Before the Commission, Plattform complained that the
Austrian authorities had disregarded the true meaning of freedom
of assembly by having failed to take practical steps to ensure
that its demonstrations passed off without any trouble.
29. In the Government's submission, Article 11 (art. 11) did
not create any positive obligation to protect demonstrations.
Freedom of peaceful assembly - enshrined in Article 12 of the
Austrian Basic Law of 1867 - was mainly designed to protect the
individual from direct interference by the State. Unlike some
other provisions in the Convention and the Austrian Constitution,
Article 11 (art. 11) did not apply to relations between
individuals. At all events, the choice of the means to be used in
a given situation was a matter for the State's discretion.
30. In its decision of 17 October 1985 on admissibility, the
Commission dealt at length with the question whether Article 11
(art. 11) impliedly required the State to protect demonstrations
from those wishing to interfere with or disrupt them. It answered
this question in the affirmative.
31. The Court does not have to develop a general theory of the
positive obligations which may flow from the Convention, but
before ruling on the arguability of the applicant association's
claim it has to give an interpretation of Article 11 (art. 11).
32. A demonstration may annoy or give offence to persons
opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. The
participants must, however, be able to hold the demonstration
without having to fear that they will be subjected to physical
violence by their opponents; such a fear would be liable to deter
associations or other groups supporting common ideas or interests
from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial
issues affecting the community. In a democracy the right to
counter-demonstrate cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of
the right to demonstrate.
Genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot,
therefore, be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not
to interfere: a purely negative conception would not be compatible
with the object and purpose of Article 11 (art. 11). Like
Article 8 (art. 8), Article 11 (art. 11) sometimes requires
positive measures to be taken, even in the sphere of relations
between individuals, if need be (see, mutatis mutandis, the X and
Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91,
p. 11, з 23).
33. Concurring with the Government and the Commission, the
Court finds that Austrian law is concerned to protect
demonstrations by such positive action. For example, Articles 284
and 285 of the Criminal Code make it an offence for any person to
disperse, prevent or disrupt a meeting that has not been
prohibited, and sections 6, 13 and 14 (2) of the Assembly Act,
which empower the authorities in certain cases to prohibit, bring
to an end or disperse by force an assembly, also apply to
counter-demonstrations (see paragraphs 54 and 40 of the
Commission's report).
34. While it is the duty of Contracting States to take
reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful
demonstrations to proceed peacefully, they cannot guarantee this
absolutely and they have a wide discretion in the choice of the
means to be used (see, mutatis mutandis, the Abdulaziz, Cabales
and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94,
pp. 33 - 34, з 67, and the Rees judgment of 17 October 1986,
Series A no. 106, pp. 14 - 15, зз 35 - 37). In this area the
obligation they enter into under Article 11 (art. 11) of the
Convention is an obligation as to measures to be taken and not as
to results to be achieved.
35. In the applicant association's submission, the police
remained entirely passive at each of the two demonstrations in
issue. The Government and the Commission disagreed; in their view,
immediate intervention was not justified in the absence of any
serious assaults and would inevitably have provoked physical
violence.
36. The Court does not have to assess the expediency or
effectiveness of the tactics adopted by the police on these
occasions but only to determine whether there is an arguable claim
that the appropriate authorities failed to take the necessary
measures.
37. As regards the incidents at Stadl-Paura on 28 December
1980 (see paragraphs 9 - 13 above), it must first be noted that
the two demonstrations planned by supporters of abortion, which
were due to be held at the same time and place as Plattform's
demonstration (of which notice had been given on 30 November) had
been prohibited. Furthermore, a large number of uniformed and
plain-clothes policemen had been deployed along the route
originally planned, and the police representatives did not refuse
the applicant association their protection even after it decided
to change the route despite their objections. Lastly, no damage
was done nor were there any serious clashes; the
counter-demonstrators chanted slogans, waved banners and threw
eggs or clumps of grass, which did not prevent the procession and
the open-air religious service from proceeding to their
conclusion; special riot-control units placed themselves between
the opposing groups when tempers had risen to the point where
violence threatened to break out.
38. For the 1982 demonstration in Salzburg (see paragraph 19
above) the organisers had chosen the date of 1 May, the day of the
traditional Socialist march which had to be cancelled - as regards
the cathedral square - because the applicant association had given
notice of its demonstration earlier. Furthermore, a hundred
policemen were sent to the scene to separate the participants from
their opponents and avert the danger of direct attacks; they
cleared the square so as to prevent any disturbance of the
religious service.
39. It thus clearly appears that the Austrian authorities did
not fail to take reasonable and appropriate measures.
No arguable claim that Article 11 (art. 11) was violated has
thus been made out; Article 13 (art. 13) therefore does not apply
in the instant case.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13
(art. 13).
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21 June 1988.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Marc-{Andre} EISSEN
Registrar
|
