PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) and by the Government of the Swiss Confederation (“the Government“) on 12 December 1986 and 25 February 1987 respectively, within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 10737/84) against Switzerland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by nine Swiss citizens - Mr. Josef Felix Müller, Mr. Charles Descloux, Mr. Michel Gremaud, Mr. Paul Jacquat, Mr. Jean Pythoud, Mrs. Geneviève Renevey, Mr. Michel Ritter, Mr. Jacques Sidler and Mr. Walter Tschopp - and a Canadian national, Mr. Christophe von Imhoff, on 22 July 1983. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Switzerland recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government’s application referred to Articles 45, 47 and 48 (art. 45, art. 47, art. 48). Both sought a decision from the Court as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 10 (art. 10).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings pending before the Court and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mrs. D. Bindschedler-Robert, the elected judge of Swiss nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr. R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 § 3 (b)). On 3 February 1987, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other five members, namely Mr. J. Cremona, Mr. J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr. R. Bernhardt and Mr. A. Spielmann (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Mr. Pinheiro Farinha, who was unable to attend, was replaced by Mr. J. De Meyer, substitute judge (Rules 22 § 1 and 24 § 1).

Mr. Ryssdal, who had assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 5), consulted - through the Deputy Registrar - the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicants on the need for a written procedure (Rule 37 § 1). In accordance with the orders made in consequence, the registry received: (a) the applicants’ memorial, written in German by leave of the President (Rule 27 § 3), on 1 June 1987; (b) the Government’s memorial, on 30 July. In a letter of 12 October, the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would make his submissions at the hearing.

Having consulted - through the Deputy Registrar - the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicants, the President directed on 23 October 1987 that the oral proceedings should commence on 25 January 1988 (Rule 38).

On 30 November, the Court decided to inspect the impugned paintings by Josef Felix Müller, as the Government had suggested (Rule 40 § 1). They were duly shown, in camera, in the presence of those appearing before the Court, on 25 January 1988, before the hearing began. In the meantime, on 2 and 4 December 1987, the Registrar had received a number of documents which the President had instructed him to obtain from the Commission. Between 11 January and 8 April 1988, the Government and the applicants furnished several other documents.

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:

for the Government Mr. O. Jacot-Guillarmod, Head of the Department of International Affairs, Federal Department of Justice, Agent, Mr. P. Zappelli, Cantonal Judge, Canton of Fribourg, Mr. B. Münger, Federal Department of Justice, Counsel;

for the Commission Mr. H. Vandenberghe, Delegate;

for the applicants Mr. P. Rechsteiner, avocat, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr. Jacot-Guillarmod for the Government, by Mr. Vandenberghe for the Commission and by Mr. Rechsteiner for the applicants, as well as their replies to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The first applicant, Josef Felix Müller, a painter born in 1955, lives in St. Gall. The other nine applicants are: (a) Charles Descloux, art critic, born in 1939 and living in Fribourg; (b) Michel Gremaud, art teacher, born in 1944 and living at Guin, Garmiswil; (c) Christophe von Imhoff, picture restorer, born in 1939 and living at Belfaux; (d) Paul Jacquat, bank clerk, born in 1940 and living at Belfaux; (e) Jean Pythoud, architect, born in 1925 and living in Fribourg; (f) Geneviève Renevey, community worker, born in 1946 and living at Villars-sur-Glâne; (g) Michel Ritter, artist, born in 1949 and living at Montagny-la-Ville; (h) Jacques Sidler, photographer, born in 1946 and living at Vuisternens-en-Ogoz; (i) Walter Tschopp, assistant lecturer, born in 1950 and living in Fribourg.

Josef Felix Müller has exhibited on his own and with other artists on many occasions, particularly since 1981, both in private galleries and in museums, in Switzerland and elsewhere. With the assistance of the Federal Office of Culture, he took part in the Sydney Biennial in Australia in 1984, as Switzerland’s representative. He has been awarded several prizes and has sold works to museums such as the Kunsthalle in Zürich.

In 1981, the nine last-mentioned applicants mounted an exhibition of contemporary art in Fribourg at the former Grand Seminary, a building due to be demolished. The exhibition, entitled “Fri-Art 81“, was held as part of the celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the Canton of Fribourg’s entry into the Swiss Confederation. The organisers invited several artists to take part, each of whom was allowed to invite another artist of his own choosing. The artists were meant to make free use of the space allocated to them. Their works, which they created on the spot from early August 1981 onwards, were to have been removed when the exhibition ended on 18 October 1981.

In the space of three nights Josef Felix Müller, who had been invited by one of the other artists, produced three large paintings (measuring 3.11m x 2.24m, 2.97m x 1.98m and 3.74m x 2.20m) entitled “Drei Nächte, drei Bilder“ (“Three Nights, Three Pictures“). They were on show when the exhibition began on 21 August 1981. The exhibition had been advertised in the press and on posters and was open to all, without any charge being made for admission. The catalogue, specially printed for the preview, contained a photographic reproduction of the paintings.

On 4 September 1981, the day of the official opening, the principal public prosecutor of the Canton of Fribourg reported to the investigating judge that the paintings in question appeared to come within the provisions of Article 204 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited obscene publications and required that they be destroyed (see paragraph 20 below). The prosecutor thought that one of the three pictures also infringed freedom of religious belief and worship within the meaning of Article 261 of the Criminal Code. According to the Government, the prosecutor had acted on an information laid by a man whose daughter, a minor, had reacted violently to the paintings on show; some days earlier another visitor to the exhibition had apparently thrown down one of the paintings, trampled on it and crumpled it.

Accompanied by his clerk and some police officers, the investigating judge went to the exhibition on 4 September and had the disputed pictures removed and seized; ten days later, he issued an attachment order. On 30 September 1981, the Indictment Chamber dismissed an appeal against that decision. After questioning the ten applicants on 10, 15 and 17 September and 6 November 1981, the investigating judge committed them for trial to the Sarine District Criminal Court.

On 24 February 1982, the court sentenced each of them to a fine of 300 Swiss francs (SF) for publishing obscene material (Article 204 § 1 of the Criminal Code) - the convictions to be deleted from the criminal records after one year - but acquitted them on the charge of infringing freedom of religious belief and worship (Article 261). It also ordered that the confiscated paintings should be deposited in the Art and History Museum of the Canton of Fribourg for safekeeping. At the hearing on 24 February, it had heard evidence from Mr. Jean-Christophe Ammann, the curator of the Kunsthalle in Basle, as to Josef Felix Müller’s artistic qualities. In its judgment, the court pointed out first of all that “the law [did] not define obscenity for the purposes of Article 204 CC [Criminal Code] and the concept [had] to be clarified by means of interpretation, having regard to the intent and purpose of the enactment as well as to its place in the legislation and in the overall legal system“. After referring to the Federal Court’s case-law on the subject, it said among other things: “In the instant case, although Mr. Müller’s three works are not sexually arousing to a person of ordinary sensitivity, they are undoubtedly repugnant at the very least. The overall impression is of persons giving free rein to licentiousness and even perversion. The subjects - sodomy, fellatio, bestiality, the erect penis - are obviously morally offensive to the vast majority of the population. Although allowance has to be made for changes in the moral climate, even for the worse, what we have here would revolutionise it. Comment on the confiscated works is superfluous; their vulgarity is plain to see and needs no elaborating upon. ... Nor can a person of ordinary sensitivity be expected to go behind what is actually depicted and make a second assessment of the picture independently of what he can actually see. To do that he would have to be accompanied to exhibitions by a procession of sexologists, psychologists, art theorists or ethnologists in order to have explained to him that what he saw was in reality what he wrongly thought he saw. Lastly, the comparisons with the works of Michelangelo and J. Bosch are specious. Apart from the fact that they contain no depictions of the kind in Müller’s paintings, no valid comparison can be made with history-of-art or cultural collections in which sexuality has a place ..., but without lapsing into crudity. Even with an artistic aim, crude sexuality is not worthy of protection ... . Nor are comparisons with civilisations foreign to western civilisation valid.“ On the question whether to order the destruction of the pictures under paragraph 3 of Article 204 (see paragraph 20 below), the court said: “Not without misgivings, the court will not order the destruction of the three works. The artistic merit of the three works exhibited in Fribourg is admittedly less obvious than is supposed by the witness Ammann, who nevertheless said that the paintings Müller exhibited in Basle were more ‘demanding’. The court would not disagree. Müller is undoubtedly an artist of some accomplishment, particularly in the matter of composition and in the use of colour, even though the works seized in Fribourg appear rather scamped. Nonetheless, the court, deferring to the art critic’s opinion while not sharing it, and concurring with the relevant findings of the Federal Court in the Rey judgment (ATF 89 IV 136 et seq.), takes the view that in order to withhold the three paintings from the general public - to ‘destroy’ them - it is sufficient to place them in a museum, whose curator will be required to make them available only to a few serious specialists capable of taking an exclusively artistic or cultural interest in them as opposed to a prurient interest. The Art and History Museum of the Canton of Fribourg meets the requirements for preventing any further breach of Article 204 of the Criminal Code. The three confiscated paintings will be deposited there.“

All the applicants appealed on points of law on 24 February 1982; in particular, they challenged the trial court’s interpretation as regards the obscenity of the relevant paintings. For example, it was argued by Josef Felix Müller (in pleadings of 16 March 1982) that something which was obscene sought directly to arouse sexual passion, and that this had to be its purpose, with the essential aim of pandering to man’s lowest instincts or else for pecuniary gain. This, it was alleged, was never the case “where artistic or scientific endeavour [was] the primary consideration“.

The Fribourg Cantonal Court, sitting as a court of cassation, dismissed the appeals on 26 April 1982. Referring to the Federal Court’s case-law, it acknowledged that “in the recent past, and still today, the public’s general views on morality and social mores, which vary at different times and in different places, have changed in a way which enables things to be seen more objectively and naturally“. The trial court had to take account of this change, but that did not mean that it had to show complete permissiveness, which would leave no scope for the application of Article 204 of the Criminal Code. As for works of art, they did not in themselves have any privileged status. At most they might escape destruction despite their obscenity. Their creators nonetheless fell within the thrust of Article 204, “since that statutory provision as a whole [was] designed to protect public morals, even in the sphere of the fine arts“. That being so, the court could dispense with deciding the question whether the pictures complained of were the outcome of “artistic ideas, though even then, intention [was] one thing and realisation of it another“. Like the trial court, the appellate court found that Josef Felix Müller’s paintings aroused “repugnance and disgust“: “These are not works which, in treating a particular subject or scene, allude to sexual activity more or less discreetly. They place it in the foreground, depicting it not in the embrace of man and woman but in vulgar images of sodomy, fellatio between males, bestiality, erect penises and masturbation. Sexual activity is the main, not to say sole, ingredient of all three paintings, and neither the appellants’ explanations nor the witness Mr. Ammann’s learned-seeming but wholly unpersuasive remarks can alter that fact. To go into detail, however distasteful it may be, one of the paintings contains no fewer than eight erect members. All the persons depicted are entirely naked and one of them is engaging simultaneously in various sexual practices with two other males and an animal. He is kneeling down and not only sodomising the animal but holding its erect penis in another animal’s mouth. At the same time he is having the lower part of his back - his buttocks, even - fondled by another male, whose erect penis a third male is holding towards the first male’s mouth. The animal being sodomised has its tongue extended towards the buttocks of a fourth male, whose penis is likewise erect. Even the animals’ tongues (especially in the smallest painting) are more suggestive, in shape and aspect, of erect male organs than of tongues. Sexual activity is crudely and vulgarly portrayed for its own sake and not as a consequence of any idea informing the work. Lastly, it should be pointed out that the paintings are large ..., with the result that their crudeness and vulgarity are all the more offensive. The court is likewise unconvinced by the appellants’ contention that the paintings are symbolical. What counts is their face value, their effect on the observer, not some abstraction utterly unconnected with the visible image or which glosses over it. Furthermore, the important thing is not the artist’s meaning or purported meaning but the objective effect of the image on the observer ... . Not much of the argument in the appeal was directed to the issues of intention or of awareness of obscenity, nor indeed could it have been. In particular, an author is aware of a publication’s obscenity when he knows it deals with sexual matters and that any written or pictorial allusion to such matters is likely, in the light of generally accepted views, grossly to offend the average reader’s or observer’s natural sense of decency and propriety. That was plainly so here, as the evidence at the trial confirmed. ... Indeed, several of the defendants admitted that the paintings had shocked them. It should be noted that even someone insensible to obscenity is capable of realising that it may disturb others. As the trial court pointed out, the defendants at the very least acted recklessly. Lastly, it is immaterial that similar works have allegedly been exhibited elsewhere; the three paintings in issue do not on that account cease to be obscene, as the trial court rightly held them to be ...“

On 18 June 1982, the applicants lodged an application for a declaration of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) with the Federal Court. They sought to have the judgment of 26 April set aside and the case remitted with a view to their acquittal and the return of the confiscated paintings or, in the alternative, merely the return of the paintings. In their submission, the Fribourg Cantonal Court had wrongly interpreted Article 204 of the Criminal Code; in particular, it had taken no account of the scope of the freedom of artistic expression, guaranteed inter alia in Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention. Mr. Ammann, one of the most distinguished experts on modern art, had confirmed that these were works of note. Similar pictures by Josef Felix Müller, moreover, had been exhibited in Basle in February 1982 and it had not occurred to anyone to regard them as being obscene. As to the “publication“ of obscene items, which was prohibited under Article 204 of the Criminal Code, this was a relative concept. It should be possible to show in an exhibition pictures which, if they were displayed in the market-place, would fall foul of Article 204; people interested in the arts ought to have an opportunity to acquaint themselves with all the trends in contemporary art. Visitors to an exhibition of contemporary art like “Fri-Art 81“ should expect to be faced with modern works that might be incomprehensible. If they did not like the paintings in issue, they were free to look away from them and pass them by; there was no need for the protection of the criminal law. It was not for the court to undertake indirect censorship of the arts. On a strict construction of Article 204 - that is, one which, having regard to the fundamental right to freedom of artistic expression, left it to art-lovers to decide for themselves what they wanted to see -, the applicants should be acquitted. Confiscation of the disputed paintings, they submitted, could only be ordered if they represented a danger to public order such that returning them could not be justified - and that was a matter the court of cassation had not considered. Since the pictures had been openly on display for ten days without giving rise to any protests, it was difficult to see how such a danger was made out. Josef Felix Müller would certainly not show his paintings in Fribourg in the near future. On the other hand, they could be shown without any difficulty elsewhere, as was proved by his exhibition in Basle in February 1982. It was consequently out of all proportion to deprive him of them.

The Criminal Cassation Division of the Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 26 January 1983 for the following reasons: “The decided cases show that for the purposes of Article 204 of the Criminal Code, any item is obscene which offends, in a manner that is difficult to accept, the sense of sexual propriety; the effect of the obscenity may be to arouse a normal person sexually or to disgust or repel him. ... The test of obscenity to be applied by the court is whether the overall impression of the item or work causes moral offence to a person of ordinary sensitivity ... The paintings in issue show an orgy of unnatural sexual practices (sodomy, bestiality, petting), which is crudely depicted in large format; they are liable grossly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of ordinary sensitivity. The artistic licence relied on by the appellant cannot in any way alter that conclusion in the instant case. The content and scope of constitutional freedoms are determined on the basis of the federal law currently in force. This applies inter alia to freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and artistic freedom; under Article 113 [of the Federal Constitution], the Federal Court is bound by federal enactments ... In the field of artistic creation [it] has held that works of art per se do not enjoy any special status ... A work of art is not obscene, however, if the artist contrives to present subjects of a sexual nature in an artistic form such that their offensiveness is toned down and ceases to predominate ... In reaching its decision, the criminal court does not have to view the work through an art critic’s spectacles (which would often ill become it) but must decide whether the work is liable to offend the unsuspecting visitor. Expert opinion as to the artistic merit of the work in issue is therefore irrelevant at this stage, though it might be relevant to the decision as to what action to take in order to prevent fresh offences (destruction or seizure of the item; Art. 204 § 3 CC ...). The Cantonal Court duly scrutinised the paintings for a predominantly aesthetic element. Having regard in particular to the number of sexual features in each of the three (one of them, for instance, contains eight erect members), it decided that the emphasis was on sexuality in its offensive forms and that this was the predominant, not to say sole, ingredient of the items in dispute. The Cassation Division of the Federal Court agrees. The overall impression created by Müller’s paintings is such as to be morally offensive to a person of normal sensitivity. The Cantonal Court’s finding that they were obscene was accordingly not in breach of federal law. The appellants maintained that the publication element of the offences was lacking. They are wrong. The obscene paintings were on display in an exhibition open to the public which had been advertised on posters and in the press. There was no condition of admission to ‘Fri-Art 81’, such as an age-limit. The paintings in dispute were thus made accessible to an indeterminate number of people, which is the criterion of publicity for the purposes of Article 204 CC ...“ Finally, the Criminal Cassation Division of the Federal Court declared the alternative application for return of the paintings to be inadmissible as it had not first been made before the cantonal courts.

On 20 January 1988, the Sarine District Criminal Court granted an application made by Josef Felix Müller on 29 June 1987 and ordered the return of the paintings. On the basis that it had been requested in effect to reconsider the confiscation order it had made in 1982, the court held that it had to decide whether the order could stand “almost eight years later“. Hence, the reasons for its decision were as follows: “In Swiss law, confiscation is a preventive measure in rem. This is already clear from the legislative text, which classifies Article 58 under the heading ‘other measures’ - the heading in the margin for Articles 57-62 CC - and not under the subsidiary penalties prescribed in Articles 51-56 CC ... The confiscation of items or assets may admittedly constitute a serious interference with property rights. It must be proportionate and a more lenient order may thus be justified where it achieves the desired aim. Confiscation remains however the rule. It should be departed from only where a more lenient order achieves the desired aim ... In this case, when the confiscation order was made in 1982, the statutory provision (Article 204 § 3 CC) would normally have required the destruction of the paintings. Giving a reasoned decision, the court preferred a more lenient measure which achieved the aim of security, whilst complying with the principle of proportionality ... . The measure itself should remain in force only as long as the statutory requirements are satisfied ... . It is true that the Code makes no provision for an order under Article 58 to be subsequently discharged or varied. The legislature probably did not address itself to this question at the time, whereas provision was made whereby other measures, which were admittedly much more serious because they restricted personal liberty, could be re-examined by a court of its own motion (Articles 42-44 CC). It does not follow that discharge or variation is completely illegal. The Federal Court has, moreover, held that a measure should not remain in force where the circumstances justifying it cease to obtain ... . Accordingly, the view must be taken that an order confiscating a work of art may subsequently be discharged or varied, either because the confiscated item is no longer dangerous and a measure is no longer required, or because the necessary degree of security may be achieved by another more lenient measure (judgment of the Basle-Urban Court of Appeal of 19 August 1980, in the Fahrner case). Judgments concerning freedom of expression and its scope often refer to Article 10 §§ 1 and 2 (art. 10-1, art. 10-2) [of the Convention]. In this area, the decisions of the Convention authorities have a direct influence on the Swiss legal system, by way of strengthening individual liberties and judicial safeguards ... In this case, where the applicant has availed himself of the possibility of applying for the return of his paintings, the court must consider whether the grounds on which it made the confiscation order in the first place, which restricted J.F. Müller’s freedom of expression, are still valid. While the restriction was necessary in a democratic society in 1982 and was justified by the need to safeguard and protect morality and the rights of others, the court considers, admittedly with some hesitation, that the order may now be discharged. It should be noted that the confiscation measure was not absolute but merely of indeterminate duration, which left room to apply for a reconsideration. It appears to the court that the preventive measure has now fulfilled its function, namely to ensure that such paintings are not exhibited in public again without any precautions. Those convicted have themselves admitted that the paintings could shock people. Once the order has achieved its aim, there is no reason why it should continue in force. Accordingly, the artist is entitled to have his works returned to him. It is not necessary to attach any obligations to this decision. If J.F. Müller decided to exhibit the three paintings again elsewhere, he knows that he would be running the risk of further action by the courts under Article 204 of the Criminal Code. Finally, it appears that by exhibiting three provocative paintings in a former seminary in 1982, J.F. Müller deliberately intended to draw attention to himself and the organisers. Since then he has become known for more ‘demanding’ works, to use the terms of the art critic who gave evidence in 1982. Having achieved a certain repute, he may find it unnecessary to shock by resorting to vulgarity. In any event, there is no reason to believe that he will use the three paintings in future to offend other people’s moral sensibilities. ...“ Josef Felix Müller recovered his paintings in March 1988.