Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19791011-834878-840678
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 18:48:36+00:00
Document Index: 228096458

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 17", "l'article 3", "l'article 137", "l'article 10", "l'article 5", "l'article 10", "l'article 162", "l'article 140", "l'article 162", "l'article 3", "l'article 10", "l'article 3", "l'article 10", "l'article 17", "l'article 17", "l'article 3", "l'article 60", "l'article 17", "l'article 10", "l'article 17", "l'article 10", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 17", "l'article 10", "l'article 3", "l'article 17", "l'article 10", "l'article 3", "l'article 27"]

GLIMMERVEEN et HAGENBEEK c. PAYS-BAS
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche GLIMMERVEEN et HAGENBEEK c. PAYS-BAS
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8348/78;8406/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1979-10-11;8348.78 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) ARRESTATION OU DETENTION REGULIERE, (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURS, (Art. 5-4) ORDONNER LA LIBERATION, (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : GLIMMERVEEN et HAGENBEEKDéfendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATIONS/REQUETES NÂ° 8348/78 & 8406/78 Ijoined/jointes ) J . GLIMMERVEEN and J . HAGENBEEK v/the NETHERLAND S
J . GLIMMERVEEN et J . HAGENBEEK c/PAYS-BA S DECISION of 11 October 1979-on the admissibility of the applications DÃCISION du 11 octobre1979 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªte s
Article 10, paragraph 2 of the CÃ´nvention : The duties and responsibilities which accompany the exercice of the right to freedom of expression are reflected in particu/ar by Article 17 : of the Convention . Aiticfe 17 of the Convention : Artic% 17 covers essentially those rights which would facilitate the attempt to derive therefrom a right to engage in activities aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention . In the present case, Article 17 does not permit the use of Article 10 to spread ideas which are racially discriminatory nor of Article 3 of the First Protocol to support a candidature=founded on a platform of racial discrimination . Article 3 of the First Protocol : Does this provision apply to municipal elections in the Netherlands ? (Question not pursued) . Article 10, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Les devoirs et responsabilitÃ©s que comporte l'exercice de la libertÃ©^d'expression sont sanctionnÃ©s notamment par l'Article 17 de la Conventidn .
Article 17 de la Convention : L'artic% 17 vise essentiellement les droits qui permettraient de tenter d'en dÃ©duire celui de se livrer effectivement A des activitÃ©s visant Ã© la destruction des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention . En l'espÃ©ce, l'article 17 empÃªche que l'arttc% 10 soit invoquÃ© pour tenter de rÃ©pandre des idÃ©es , tendant Ã la discrimination raciale et que l'article 3 du Protocole l soit invoquÃ© .pour se po rt er candidat Ã une Ã©lection en annonÃ§ant un programme po/itique : de discrimination raciale.
Articfe 3 du Protocole additionnel : Cette disposition s Ã¢pplique-t-elle aux Ã©lecrions municipales aux Pays-Bas ? IQuestion non rÃ©solue) .
IfranÃ§ais : voir p . 198 1
1 . The first applicant, Mr Glirnmerveen, was born in 1928 . He is of Dutch nationality, resident in The Hague, and is an accountant by profession . The second applicant, Mr Hagenbeek, was born in 1946 . He is of Dutch nationality, resident in Huizen, and is a waiter by profession . Both applicants are represented by Mr W .J . Welfort, a lawyer practising in The Hague .
The present applications relate to different sets of facts, A and B . Part A is submitted by the first applicant only . PART A 2 . In 1974 the applicant became president of the "Nederlandse Volks Unie" IN .V .U .1 a political party created in 1971, whose basic principles are, as the applicant describes them, a world conception which grants each nation a proper state, as well as the belief that the general interest of a state is best served by an ethnical homogeneous population and not by racial mixing . 3 . On 29 March 1977 he was convicted and sentenced by the Regional Court of Rotterdam to a two-week prison term for having possessed, with a view to disuibution on 30 August 1976 in Schiedam, leaflets which the court found to be inciting to racial discrimination (Article 137 (e) of the Dutch Criminal Code' I . The leaflets were confiscated . 4 . The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of The Hague . The Court pointed in particular to the combined use of words such as :"white Dutch people (in the title), white fellow citizens, our white peoplÃ© "', and the following passages : "The truth is that the major part of our population since a long time has had enough of the presence in our contry of hundreds of thousands of Surinamers, Turks and other so-called guest workers, who, moreover, are not at all needed here and that the authorities as servants of our people merely have to see to it that these undesired aliens leave our country as soon as possible" ,"As soon as the Nederlandse Volks Unie will have gaine d ' An . 137 lel of the Dutch Criminal Lode prohibrts I .a . the expression of views that mav be offensive for a group of people by reason of their race, relig ion or other conviction or that incite to hatred against or drscrimmaY,on of or violent behaviour towards people by reason of their race, religion or other conviction unless these views are expressed for the purpose of impaning informatio n
"blanke Nederlande rs . blanke stadsgenoten, one blanke Nederlandse volk" .
political power in our country, it will put order into business and, to begin with will remove all Surinamers, Turks and other so-called guest workers from the Netherlands . . ." ' The Court considered the above passages to constitute incitement to discrimination on the basis of race, it being understood that the notion of race equally included an ethnic group . The Court recalled that the major part of the 'Surinamers' residing in the Netherlqnds in 1976 were of Dutch nationality and that the removal of all Surinamers without any distinction as undesired aliens was to be considered a serious form of racial discrimination . It held moreover that the contents of the leaflet taken as a whole, could not be considered as factual information . The Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed on 16 August 1977 the applicant's conviction . 5 . The applicant lodged a plea of nullity with the Supreme Court in The Hague . He submitted, inter alia, (a) that Article 137 lel of the Dutch Penal Code had been wrongly applied, since the Nederlandse Volks Unie envisaged the realisation of its aims only by "lawful means", Ibl that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been disregarded as well as Icl Article 5 of the Dutch Constitution which provides that "every Dutch citizen is eligible as a civil servant" . The Supreme Court rejected the plea holding the above arguments to be lal irrelevant, Ibl unfounded in the light of paragraph 2 of Article 10, and (c) unsubstantiated . The decision of the Supreme Court is dated 14 March 1978 . PART B is submitted by both applicants : 6 . On 18 April 1978 the Central Voting Boards for the municipal council elections of both Amsterdam and The Hague received a list of candidates which bore no heading and on which both applicants appeared as candidates . 7 The Central Voting Board for the election of the municipal council of Amsterdam, on 21 April 1978, declared the list invalid . The grounds for this decision were as follows : a . On the list appeared as first candidate, Mr M .G . Glimmerveen and as sixth candidate Mr J .P .J .C . Hagenbeek, while the list was submitted by a third perso n ' De waarheid is, dat het grootste deel van one volk el lang genoeg heefl van de aanwezigheid I n ons land van honderdduizenden Surinamers, Turken en andere zogenaamde gastarbeiders, die hier bovendien helemaal niet nodig ziin en dal de overheid als dienares van ons volk maer heefl te zorgen dat deze ongewenste vreemdenngen zo sooedig mogeliik one land verlaten ; Zodra de NV .U . de politleke machi in ans land heaft veroverd, zal zli orde op :aken slellen en om te beginnen : al Alle Surinamers, Turken en antlere zogenaamde gaslarbeiders uit Nederland verwiÃderen ._ .
b . The persons mentioned under (a) were, as appeared from a decision of the Regional Court of Amsterdam of 8 March 1978', the President, the vice-president and secretary of the Nederlandse Volks Unie . c The members of the governing board of the Nederlandse Volks Unie mentioned under Ibl had, according to the above decision, in no way dissociated themselves from opinions and manifestations of the Nederlandse Volks Unie in so far as race, colour, origin, national and ethnic provenance of certain groups are concerned d . The candidates mentioned under (a) shared the views of the Nederlandse Volks Unie, and this also applied to the remaining candidates on the list, who had declared themselves ready to be listed with the members of the governing board of the Nederlandse Volks Unie, mentioned under lal on one single list . e . The list of candidates was therefore to be seen as a list of candidates of the Nederlandse Volks Unie . I. The Nederlandse Volks Unie was, as resulted from the decision mentioned under (b), a prohibited association . ' g The Dutch legal order did not permit that the Central Voting Board declare valid a list of candidates that must be seen as a list of candidates of the Nederlandse Volks Unie . One member of the Central Voting Board expressed a dissenting opinion . In his view, the Dutch Elections Act did not contain any grounds for a decision to declare a list invalid on these grounds" and moreover the candidates thus were deprived of their right to stand for elections, a decision which could only be taken by a magistrate . 8 . The Central Voting Board of The Hague on 24 April 1978 equally declared the list invalid . It did so on the following grounds : The first and the last candidate on the list were the president and vice-president of a prohibited association, the Nederlandse Volks Unie . The prohibited character of the association resulted from a decision of the Amsterdam Regional Court . On the occasion of an enquiry made by tha t
' The above-mentioned decision was based on Ans 15 and 16 of Chaoter II of the Civil Code . The Court, while ouahfying the NVU as a prohibited association, rejected the public prosecutor's request to dissolve the association . The eoplicant's appeal against this decision was declared inadmissble by the Coun of Appeal of Amsterdam on 3o June 1978, as the appeal was directed against the grounds of the decision and not against its operative parts . " The Dutch Elections Act of JuN 1951 sums up in its provision H5 the grounds on which a list may be declared invalid . These are ess entialN of a formal nature such as : date and hour of deposit, the deposit of a certain sum of money . the numUer of signatories reoutred, the fact that the list has been handed over In person by a person who is deprived of his right to stand for elections and who is as such not inscribed in the electoral reglster .
Cairt the leaders of the association had declared that it firmly intended to continue its political activities, even if it had to be by other means than those so far employed . At present, lists were presented in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague on which Mr Glimmerveen and Mr Hagenbeek, being the president and vice-president of the prohibited association, were nominated . In Amsterdam, a third person who is secretary of the association was also listed . In 1974 Mr Glimmerveen had presented himself as a candidate for the elections to The Hague's Municipal Council . He was then the only candidate of a list named "Nederlandse Volks Unie" . Earlier this year (1968) the registration in Amsterdam and Rotterdam of the name of a political group as "lijst Glimmerveen" had been cancelled in appeal proceedings â¢ by the "Kiesraad" (Election Board) in view of the fact that the political aims behind the "lijst Glimmerveen" could be assumed to be identical with those of the prohibited association "Nederlandse Volks UniÃ© " In view of the above-mentioned reasons the Central Voting Board of The Hague concluded that the presentation of the "lijst Glimmerveen" in the communities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague could reasonably be considered as a disguised act of the prohibited association . It was true that the Elections Act, and in particular its provision H5, did not provide such a ground for rejecting a list . However, it was clear that the Central Voting Board had to observe other existing legal provisions and in particular those relating to prohibited associations . Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that public officers who, in the exercise of their duties, obtain knowledge of a criminal act with the detection of which they are not charged, are obliged to denounce these acts . As the activities of a prohibited association are penalised by Article 140, paragraph 2 of the Dutch Penal Code, the Central Voting Board would promote prohibited activities by accepting the Gst . Two members of the Board were of the opinion that it was not competent not to accept the list, as the submission of the list did not have the character of a request on which the Voting Board would have to decide . They would therefore merely have to denounce the acts, as was required of them by Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . They admitted that reasons relating to public order and/or good morals were prevailing, but considered that they fell outside the scope of Article H5 of the Elections Act and that Article G3, paragraph 3 of the same Act â¢â¢ was not applicable here by analogy . This remedy is provided for in An . G3, para 5 of the Elections Act . An . G3, oare . 31a1 of the Elections Act provides that registration of the name . or indication theraol, of a political group with a view to municipal alection may be refused for reasort5 relating to public order and good morals .
9 . Two other candidates listed on the same list appealed against the decision of the Amsterdam Central Voting Office of 21 April 1978 to the provincial Board of Northern Holland . This remedy is provided in Article H7 of the Election Act The provincial Board of Northern Holland rejected the appeal on 28 April 1978 as being unfounded . It considered, inter alia, that it resulted from the decision of the Amsterdam Regional Court of 8 March 1978 Icf . footnote ' on p . 190) . - that Mr Glimmerveen and Mr Hagenbeek were president and vicepresident of the association ; - that the court, in the above-mentioned decision had qualified the Nederlandse Volks Unie as a prohibited association on the basisof the requirements, in the Netherlands, of public order and good morals ;-thatmoreovertheabove-mentionedcandi ates,ac ordingtothe Amsterdam Court's decision, had in no way dissociated themselves from the judgments and manifestations of the Nederlandse Volks Unie ; - that the Amsterdam Court considered that the aim of the group of people who wanted to participate in the Amsterdam Municipal Council elections could only be the same as those of the Nederlandse Volks Unie whose aims ran counter to public order ; - that, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the Election Act, higher unwritten legal principles applied which were rooted in the legal conscience of the Dutch People ; an d - that it was for these reasons that the Central Voting Board had rightly declared the list invalid . 10 . The first applicant appealed against the decision of the Central Voting Board of the Hague to the Provincial Board of Southern Holland . The Provincial Board of Southern Holland dismissed the appeal on 2 May 1978 for the following reasons : Article G3, paragraph 3 lal of the Elections Act offered the possibility of rejecting a request from a political party or group to have a particular name or indication thereof, or both, inscribed in a register which is kept by the Central Voting Board with a view to the election of the members of the Municipal Council, if there were reasons, related to public order and good morals, to do so . It would be curious if, on the basis of that provision, the registration of a name of a political party could be refused, whilst the list as such could not be declared invalid on analogous grounds . The Election Board, in April 1978 had rejected an appeal introduced by The Hague's section of the Nederlandse Volks Unie against a decision by the Central Voting Board of The Hagu e
refusing the registration of the Nederlandse Volks Unie or N .V .U . considering that its aims were conirary to public order . It could not possibly have been the intention of the legislature to make it possible, on the one hand to reject a request for the registration of a particular party's name or indication thereof on the ground that it was incompatible with the concepts of public order, while, on the other hand, it would not be possible to declare invalid a list which functions as a cloak for a prohibited association . Three members of the Provincial Board voted in favour of the above decision and two members against .
COMPLAINT S The applicants consider that their right to freedom of thought, freedom of expression in general and freedom of expression in the context of elections in particular have been jeopardised . They thus consider Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention to be violated . Moreover, they submit that Arlicle 3 of Protocol No . 1 has been violated by reason of the above facts . In so lar as the second part of the application is concerned, the applicants make the following additional complaint : The decisions of the Provincial Boards of Northern Holland and Southern Holland have in fact deprived them of their right to stand for elections . According to Article 90 and Article 152 of the Dutch Constitution this decision may only be taken by a magistrate, which the said Boards were not* . They ask the Commission to intervene in order to guarantee to them the full enjoyment of the above fundamental rights .
THE LA W The applicants complain that the Netherlands authorities, on the one hand by convicting them for having possessed with a view to distribution, leaflets considered to be inciting to racial discrimination, and on the other hand, by preventing them from participating in the municipal elections in Amsterdam and The Hague, have disregarded their basic and fundamental rights set forth in the Convention The Commission considers that these complaints concern principally Article 10 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No . 1 .
' The destitutlon of t he right to stand for elecGons can in faci be oronounced as a supplementary oenalty IArt . 2 8 131 of the Criminal Codel
As regards Article 10 of the Convention Article 10 of the Convention provides : "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 . " The various measures challenged -the applicants' conviction and the decisions to declare invalid the electoral lists on which they appeared-were, and the Government did not deny it, interferences by the public authorities in the exercise of their freedom of expression which is guaranteed by paragraph 1 of the text quoted above . The Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights in the Handyside Case (Judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A, No . 24, para .491 . has held that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man . It added :"Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, 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 the state or any sector of the population . Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no 'democratic society' " . The Court also established in the above judgment that "whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes 'duties and responsibilities' the scope of which depends on his situation and the technical means he uses" . The Commission is of the opinion that the duties and responsibilities referred to above find an even stronger expression in a more general provision, namely Article 17 of the Convention which reads as follows : "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perfor m
_1g4-
any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention . " The general purpose of Article 17 is to prevent totalitarian groups from exploiting in their own interests the principles enunciated by the Convention . To achieve that purpose, it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from persons found to be engaged in activities aimed at the destruction of any of those rights and freedoms . Article 17 covers essentially those rights which, if invoked, will facilitate the attÃ©mpt to derive therefrom a right to engage personally in activities aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention Icf . "Lawless" Case (Merits), Judgment of 1 July 1961, para . 6 of The Law at p . 45) . It is with the above considerations in mind that the Commission examined the applicants' complaints . The leaflet which led to the applicants' conviction addresses itself in its heading tothe "white Dutch people" . It contains statements such as "the major part of our population since a long time has had enough of the presence in our country of hundreds of thousands Surinamers, Turks and other so-called guest workers, who moreover are not at all needed here, and . . . the authorities merely have to see to it that these undesired aliens leave our country as soon as possible" . It further announces "that the N .V .U . will continue its battle for the white people of the Netherlands until political power of (certain political parties) and other related parties will have been definitely broken . As soon as the Netherlandse Volks Unie will have gained political power in our country, it will put order into business and to begin with : 1) remove Surinamers, Turks and other so-called guest workers from the Netherlands . . ." . Thus, the policy advocated by the applicants is inspired by the overall aim to remove all non-white people from the Netherlands' territory, in complete disregard of their nationality, time of residence, family ties, as well as social, economic, humanitarian or other considerations . The Commission considers that this policy is clearly containing elements of racial discrimination which is prohibited under the Convention and other international agreements . Article 14 of the Convention provides that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as, inrer alia, race or colour .
The Commission has held in the past that discrimination based on race could, in certain circumstances, of itself amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (cf . decision on the - 195 -
admissibility of Applications Nos . 4403/70, etc ., East African Asians Cases, Collection of Decisions 36, pp . 92, 117) . The Fourth Protocol to the Convention sets out the principle that nationals may not be expelled collectively or individually from the state of which they are nationals and that aliens cannot be expelled collectively . It is true that the Netherlands have not acceded to this Protocol, but nothing prevents them from adopting, autonomously or by reason of international obligations other than those derived from the Fourth Protocol, measures aimed at the respect of these rights . Indeed, the Government have drawn the attention of the Commission in particular in the light of Article 60 of the Convention, to the Netherlands' international obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965, to which the Netherlands acceded in 1971 . The Netherlands' authorities, in allowing the applicants to proclaim freely and without penalty their ideas would certainly encourage the discrimination prohibited by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights referred to above and the above Convention of New York of 1965 . The Commission holds the view that the expression of the political ideas of the applicants clearly constitutes an activity within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention . The applicants are essentially seeking to use Article 10 to provide a basis under the Convention for a right to engage in these activities which are, as shown above, contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention and which right, if granted, would coniribute to the destruction of the rights and freedoms referred to above . Consequently, the Commission finds that the applicants cannot, by reason of the provisions of Article 17 of the Convention, rely on Article 10 of the Convention .
As regards Artic% 3 of the First Protocol Article 3 of the First Protocol provides : "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature . " The Commission recalls that it has held in the past that Article 3 of the First Protocol guarantees in principle the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate at the election of the legislative body (decision on the admissibility of Applications Nos . 6745/74 and 6746/74 v . Belgium, Decisions and Reports 2, p . 1101 .
In the present case the question would however arise whether the Municipal Council, according to Dutch law, is invested with such normative power that it can be considered as a "legislative body" within the meaning of that provision Icf Applications Nos . 6745/74 and 6746/74, Decisions and Reports 2, p . 40) . However ; the Commission does not find it necessary to determine the above questions, as it considers that the applicants intended to participate in these elections and to avail themselves of the above right for a purpose which the Commission has just found to be unacceptable under Article 17 in relation to the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention . It is true that the applicants did not intend to participate in the above elections on behalf of the Nederlandse Volks Unie . However, the Commission observes that the Amsterdam Regional Court had established that the political leaders of the Nederlandse Volks Unie had declared that they wished to pursue their aims and objectives even if it were not formally on behalf of that association . The Commission also notes that the Central Voting Board of The Hague assumed that the political aims behind the list presented by the applicants were identical to those of the Nederlandse Volks Unie and that the Central Voting Board of Armsterdam equally relied on the above finding of the Amsterdam Regional Court, according to which the applicants had no intention of dissociating themselves from the political plarform of the Nederlandse Volks Unie . In this respect the applicants have not submitted any evidence to the contrary . Moreover the Commission would observe with reference to the reasoned decision of the various Netherlands authorities that the refusal of the list could not be characterised as an arbitrary act for any other reasons . The Commission therefore considers that, even assuming Article 3 of the First Protocol applies, the applicants cannot avail themselves of the right protected under that provision, having regard to Article 17 of the Convention . In conclusion the Commission finds that the applicants cannot, by reason of the provisions of Article 17 of the Convention, rely either on Article 10 of the Convention or Article 3 of the First Protocol . It follows that the applications are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 . For these reasons, the Commissio n
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T 1 . Le premier requÃ©rant, M . Glimme rveen, est nÃ© en 1928 . II est de nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise, rÃ©side Ã La Haye et est, de son Ã© tat, comptable . Le deuxiÃ©me requÃ©rant, M . Hagenbeek, est nÃ© en 1946 . II est de nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise, rÃ©side Ã Huizen et est, de son Ã©tat, serveur de restaurant . Les deux requÃ©rants sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s par M . W .J . Welfort, avocat au barreau de La Haye . Les prÃ©sentes requÃªtes se rapportent Ã des ensembles de faits diffÃ©rents qui seront dÃ©signÃ©s ci-aprÃ©s par A et B . La pa rt ie A ne concerne que le premier requÃ©rant .
PARTIE A 2 . En 1974 le requÃ©rant est devenu prÃ©sident de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» IN .V .U .1 ; ce parti politique, crÃ©Ã© en 1971, repose, comme le dit le requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme, sur une conception du monde qui accorde Ã chaque nation un Etat, ainsi que sur la conviction qu'il est de l'intÃ©r@t gÃ©nÃ©ral d'un Etat que sa population soit ethniquement homogÃ¨ne . 3 . Le 29 mars 1977 il fut condamnÃ© par le Tribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam Ã une peine d'emprisonnement de deux semaines . Il avait Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable d'Ãªtre en possession de tracts - qu'il comptait distribuer l Ã Schiedam - qui, selon le tribunal, incitaient Ã la discrimina-e30aorlt1976
tion raciale (art . 137 (e) du Code pÃ©nal nÃ©erlandais' . Les tracts furent confisquÃ©s . 4 . Le requÃ©rant fit appel de sa condamnation devant la cour d'appel de La Haye . Celle-ci souligna notamment l'utilisation combinÃ©e de termes tels que :Â« NÃ©erlandais de race blanche (dans le titrel, compatriotes de race blanche, notre peuple de race blanche n", et elle attira Ã©galement l'attention sur les passages suivants : Â« La vÃ©ritÃ©, c'est que la majeure partie de notre population a depuis longtemps assez de la prÃ©sence, dans notre pays, de centaines de milliers de Surinamiens, de Turcs, et d'autres travailleurs immigrÃ©s - travailleurs 'invitÃ©s' comme on dit -"' dont, au surplus, nous n'avons que faire ici ; il faut tou t
- L'anicle 137 lel du Code pÃ©nal nÃ©erlandais interdir notamment l'express,on d'opinions qui peuvent Ãªtre blessantes Pour telle catÃ©gorie de oersonnes, eu Ã©gard Ã leur race . leur religion ou . d'une maniÃ©re gÃ©nÃ©rale, leurs convictions, ou uui incitent Ã© la haine, Ã la drscrimination ou Ã© la violence envers des pÃ©rspnnes . Pour des motifs tenant Ã la race . A ia religion ou, d'une maniÃ©re gAnÃ©rale, aux convlctrons de ces Peisonnes - sauf dans le cas oÃ¹ lesdites opinions sont exprlmÃ©es dans un but d'informario n " Â« Blanke Nederlanders . blanke stadsgenoten . one blanke Nederlandse volk . "' TraducGon littÃ©rale du nÃ©erlandais Â« Gasrarbeiders s
simplement que les autoritÃ©s, qui sont au service de notre peuple, veillent Ã ce que ces Ã©trangers indÃ©sirables quittent notre pays au plus vite n . a DÃ©s que la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» aura obtenu le pouvoir politique dans notre pays, elle mettra de l'ordre dans les affaires et commencera Ã expulser des Pays-Bas tous les Surinamiens, Turcs et autres prÃ©tendus travailleurs invitÃ©s . . . a' . La cour a estimÃ© que les extraits susvisÃ©s constituent une incitation Ã la discrimination raciale, Ã©tant entendu que la notion de race inclut celle de groupe ethnique . La cour a rappelÃ© que les Surinamiens qui rÃ©sidaient aux Pays-Bas en 1976 Ã©taient en majoritÃ© de nationalitÃ© nÃ©erlandaise, et que la volontÃ© d'expulser tous les Surinamiens sans distinction en tant qu'Ã©trangers indÃ©sirables doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une grave forme de discrimination raciale . Elle a estimÃ© en outre que la teneur du tract, considÃ©rÃ© globalement, ne serait Ã©tre qualifiÃ©e d'information factuelle . Le 16 aolit 1977, la cour d'appel de La Haye confirma la condamnation du requÃ©rant . 5 Le requÃ©rant forma un pourvoi en cassation devant la Cour SuprÃªme, Ã La Haye . Il soutint entre autre (a) que l'article 137 lel du Code pÃ©nal nÃ©erlandais avail Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ© Ã tort, puisque la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» n'entend rÃ©aliser ses objectifs que par des Â« moyens lÃ©gaux n ; (b ) qu'on avait fait bon marchÃ© de l'article 10 de la Convention europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, ainsi que Icl de l'article 5 a de la Constitution nÃ©erlandaise, qui stipule que Â« tout citoyen nÃ©erlandais a le droit d'accÃ©der Ã la fonction publique a .
La Cour SuprÃ©me dAbouta le requÃ©rant en dÃ©clarant que les arguments susvisÃ©s Ã©taient a) non pertinents ; b) non fondÃ©s, eu Ã©gard au paragraphe 2 de l'article 10 ; c) non Ã©tayÃ©s par des preuves . La dÃ©cision de la Cour SuprÃªme date du 14 mars 1978 . LA PARTIE B concerne les deux requÃ©rant s 6 . Le 18 avril 1978, les commissions Ã©lectorales centrales pour les Ã©lections municipales d'Amsterdam et de La Haye reÃ§urent une liste de candidats dÃ©pourvue d'en-tÃ©te et sur laquelle figuraient les noms des deux requÃ©rants .
- De waerheid is, dat het gromste deel van one volk al lang genoeg heeft van de aanwezlgheid in ons land van hontlerdtluizenden Surinamers . Turken en andere zogonaamde gastarbeiders . die hier boventlien helemaal niel nodig ziin en dat de averheid als dienares van ons volk maar heeft le zorgen dat deze ongewenste vreemdelingen zo spoedig mogeliik ons land verlalen ; Zodia de N .V .U . de aolilieke machl in ons lantl heefl verorverd, zal zij orde op laken stellen en om te beginnen : al Alle Surinamers . Turken en andere zogenaamde gastarbeiders uit Nederland verv.ijderen . . . r
7 . Le 21 avril 1978 la commission Ã©lectorale centrale pour les Ã©lections municipales d'Amsterdam dÃ©clara la liste nulle et non avenue . Cette dÃ©cision Ã©tait motivÃ©e par les considÃ©rations suivantes : a . La liste porte les noms de M . M .G . Glimmerveen et M . J .P .J .C . Hagenbeek, respectivement en premiÃ©re position et en sixiÃ©me position ; elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e par une tierce personne ; b . Les personnes visÃ©es Ã l'alinÃ©a a . sont, ainsi qu'il appert d'une dÃ©cision du Tribunal rÃ©gional d'Amsterdam du 8 mars 1978' le prÃ©sident, le vice-prÃ©sident et le secrÃ©taire de la a Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» . c . Selon la dÃ©cision susvisÃ©e, les membres du conseil de direction de la a Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» visÃ©s Ã l'alinÃ©a b . ne se dissocient nullement des opinions professÃ©es et des .manifestations organisÃ©es par la NVU au sujet de la race, de la couleur, de l'origine, de l'appartenance nationale ou ethnique de certains groupes . d . Les candidats visÃ©s Ã l'alinÃ©a a . souscrivent aux opinions de la a Nederlandse Volks Unie n . Il en va de mÃªme des autres candidats figurant sur la liste, lesquels se sont dÃ©clarÃ©s prÃªts Ã faire liste commune avec les membres du conseil de direction de la NVU visÃ©s Ã l'alinÃ©a a .
e . La liste doit donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une liste de candidats de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie n . /. En venu de la dÃ©cision visÃ©e Ã l'alinÃ©a b ., la NVU est une association interdite ( cf . note' ) . g . L'ordre juridique nÃ©erlandais ne permet pas que la commission Ã©lectorale centrale dÃ©clare valide une liste qui ne peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e que comme une liste de candidats de la NVU . Un membre de la commission Ã© lectorale centrale a exprimÃ© une opinion dissidente . Il a fait valoir qu'aucune disposition de la Loi Ã©lectorale nÃ©erlandaise ne permet d'invalider une liste pour de tels motifs" ; qu'au surplus, les candidats se sont vus ainsi priver de leur droit de solliciter les suffrages ; or, une telle dÃ©cision ne peut Ãªtre prise que par un magistrat .
' Cette dÃ©cision se fondait sur les articles 15 et 16 du Chapitre II du Code Civir Tout en qualifiant la NVU d'association interdite, le tribunal reietait Ia demande du oarauet tendant Ã la dissolution de l'association . Le recours tormÃ© par le requÃ©rant contre cette dÃ©cision fut dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable par la cour d'aonel d'Amsterdam le 30 iuin 1978 . au motif aue le recours visah les ariendus de ia dÃ©crson, et non son di5positil . "La Loi Ã©lectorale nÃ©erlandaise de iuillet 1951 rÃ©sume . dans sa disposition H5, les motifs Dour Iesquel5 une liste peut Ãªtre invalidÃ©e . Ces motifs ont as5entiellement un caractÃ©re formel : date e t heure du dip0t : dÃ©DOt d'une certaine somme d'argent ; nombre de signataires requis : le fait aue la liste a Ã©tÃ© remise personnellement oar quelau'un qui est privÃ© du droit de se porter canditlat Ã des Ã©lections et qui, oartant, n'est Das inscrit sur le regi5tre Ã©lectoral .
8 . Le 24 avril 1978, la commission Ã©lectorale centrale de La Haye dÃ©clarait, elle aussi, la liste nulle et non avenue . Sa dÃ©cision Ã©tait motivÃ©e par les considÃ©rations suivantes : Le premier et le dernier candidat de la liste sont le prÃ©sident et le viceprÃ©sident d'une association interdite, la u Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» . L'interdit frappant cette association dÃ©coule d'une dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional d'Amsterdam . A l'occasion d'une enquÃªte effectuÃ©e par cette juridiction, les dirigeants de l'association ont dÃ©clarÃ© que celle-ci avait la ferme intention de poursuivre ses activitÃ©s politiques, dÃ»t-elle pour cela employer d'autres moyens que ceux qu'elle avait utilisÃ©s Ã ce jour . Les listes prÃ©sentÃ©es Ã Amsterdam, Ã Rotterdam et Ã La Haye portent les noms de MM . Glimmerveen et Hagenbeek, respectivement prÃ©sident et vice-prÃ©sident de l'association interdite . A Amsterdam, une troisiÃ©me personne figure sur la liste : le secrÃ©taire de l'association . Eri 1974, M . Glimmerveen s'Ã©tait portÃ© candidat aux Ã©lections municipales de La Haye . Il Ã©tait alors l'unique candidat d'une liste baptisÃ©e Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie n . Le Â« Kiesraad Â» (conseil Ã©lectoral) a rÃ©cemment annulÃ© en appel' l'enregistrement Ã Amsterdam et Ã Rotterdam, d'un groupe politique sous le nom de Â« lijst Glimmerveen Â» ; on peut en effet supposer, a estimÃ© le Â« Kiesraad Â», que les objectifs politiques de la Â« lijst Glimmerveen Â» sont identiques Ã ceux de l'association interdite, la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie n . S'appuyant sur ces considÃ©rations, la commission Ã©lectorale centrale de La Haye a conclu que la prÃ©sentation de la Â« lijst Glimmerveen Â» dans les circonscriptions d'Amsterdam, de Rotterdam et de La Haye pouvait raisonnablement Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une initiative dÃ©tournÃ©e de l'association interdite . Certes, la Loi Ã©lectorale, et notamment sa disposition H5, ne permet pas d'Ã©carter une liste pour un tel motif . NÃ©anmoins, il est clair que la commission Ã©lectorale centrale est tenue d'observer d'autres dispositions juridiques existantes, et en particulier celles relatives aux associations interdites . Aux termes de l'article 162 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, tout officier public qui, dans l'exercice de ses fonctions, apprend l'existence d'un acte criminel qu'il n'entre pas dans ses attributions de dÃ©jouer est tenu de le dÃ©noncer . Etant donnÃ© que les activitÃ©s d'une association interdite tombent sous le coup de l'article 140, paragraphe 2 du Code pÃ©nal nÃ©erlandais, accepter la liste reviendrait, pour la commission Ã©lectorale centrale, Ã encourager des activitÃ©s interdites . Deux membres de la commission Ã©lectorale ont estimÃ© que celle-ci n'Ã©tait pas compÃ©tente pour ne pas accepter la liste, Ã©tant donnA que le fai t
Ce mpyen est prÃ©vu par le paragraphe 5 de latlicle G3 de la Loi Alectorale
de soumettre la liste n'a pas le caractÃ¨re d'une demande sur laquelle la commission Ã©lectorale serait appelÃ©e Ã statuer Par consÃ©quent, la commission Ã©lectorale devait, selon ces deux membres, se contenter de dÃ©noncer les actes, comme l'y invite l'article 162 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Tout en admettant la primautÃ© des considÃ©rations liÃ©es Ã l'ordre public et/ou aux bonnes mceurs, ils ont estimÃ© qu'elles n'entrent pas dans le champ d'application de l'article H5 de la Loi Ã©lectorale, et que l'article G3, paragraphe 3, de ladite loi' n'Ã©tait pas applicable ici par analogi e 9 . Deux autres candidats figurant sur la mÃªme liste recoururent devant la commission provinciale de Hollande du Nord contre la dÃ©cision de la commission Ã©lectorale centrale d'Amsterdam du 21 avril 1978 . Ce moyen est prÃ©vu par l'article H7 de la Loi Ã©lectorale . Le 28 avril 1978, la commission provinciale de Hollande du Nord rejetait le recours comme Ã©tant non fondÃ© .
La commission provinciale considÃ©rant notamment qu'il appert de la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional d'Amsterdam du 8 mars 1978 (cf . NÂ° 7(b ) ci-dessus ) - que M . Glimmerveen et M . Hagenbeek sont respectivement prÃ©sident et vice-prÃ©sident de l'association ; - que le tribunal, dans la dÃ©cision susvisÃ©e, a qualifiÃ© la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» d'association interdite, en se rÃ©fÃ©rant aux normes en vigueur, aux Pays-Bas, en matiÃ¨re d'ordre public et de bonnes maurs ; - qu'au surplus, les candidats susvisÃ©s - comme l'indique la dÃ©cision du tribunal d'Amsterdam - ne se sont nullement dissociÃ©s des opinions et des manifestations de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» ; - que le tribunal d'Amsterdam a considÃ©rÃ© que l'objectif du groupe des personnes dÃ©sireuses de se prÃ©senter aux Ã©lections municipales d'Amsterdam Ã©tait mÃ¢nifestement identique aux buts poursuivis par la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unies a, lesquels sont contraires Ã l'ordre public ; - qu'en sus des considÃ©rations mentionnÃ©es dans la Loi Ã©lectorale, il y a lieu d'invoquer des principes juridiques supÃ©rieurs non Ã©crits qui sont enracinÃ©s dans la conscience juridique nÃ©erlandaise ; - enfin, que ce sont lÃ© les motifs pour lesquels la commission Ã©lectorale centrale a, Ã juste titre, invalidÃ© la liste . 10 . Le premier requÃ©rant recourut contre la dÃ©cision de la commission Ã©lectorale centrale de La Haye auprÃ¨s de la commission provinciale d e
' L'anicle G3 . par 3 lal, de la Loi Ã©lectorale dispose oue l'enregistrement de l'appellation, exacte ou approximalive, d'un 9rouce politipue en vue d'Ã©lections municipales peut Ãªtre refusÃ© pour des motils touchant Ã l'ordre oublic et auK bonnes moeurs .
Hollande mÃ©ridionale . Celle-ci rejeta le recours le 2 mai 1978 pour les motifs indiquÃ©s ci-aprÃ©s : En vertu de l'article G3, paragraphe 3 lal, de la Loi Ã©lectorale, un e demande prÃ©sentÃ©e par un parti ou un groupe politique en vue d'obtenir l'inscription de l'appellation exacte et/ou approximative de ce parti ou de ce groupe sur un registre tenu par la commission Ã©lectorale centrale, dans la perspective de l'Ã©lection des membres du conseil municipal, peut se heurter Ã un refus, s'il y a Ã cela des raisons liÃ©es Ã l'ordre public et aux bonnes mceurs .
Il serait Ã©trange qu'on puisse se fonder sur cette disposition pour refuser l'enregistrement de l'appellation d'un parti politique, sans Ãªtre en mÃªme temps habilitÃ© Ã invalider la liste pour des motifs analogues . En avril 1978, la commission Ã©lectorale rejetait un recours introduit par la section de La Haye de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» contre une dÃ©cision par laquelle la commission Ã©lectorale centrale de La Haye avait refusÃ© l'enregistrement de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» - ou NVU - au motif que ses objectifs Ã©taient contraires Ã l'ordre public . Il ne peut pas avoir Ã©tÃ© dans les intentions du lÃ©gislateur de rendre possible le rejet, pour cause d'incompatibilitÃ© avec le concept d'ordre public, d'une demande d'enregistrement de l'appellation exacte ou approximative d'un parti, tout en rendant impossible l'invalidation d'une liste qui sert de couverture Ã une association interdite . Trois membres de la commission provinciale ont votÃ© en faveur de la dÃ©cision susvisÃ©e et deux membres ont votÃ© contre .
GRIEF S Les requÃ©rants considÃ©rent qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© lÃ©sÃ©s dans leur droit Ã la libertÃ© de pensÃ©e, Ã la libertÃ© d'expression aussi bien en gÃ©nÃ©ral que dans le contexte Ã©lectoral en particulier . Ils allÃ©guent ainsi la violation des articles 9 et 10 de la Convention europÃ©enne . En outre, ils allÃ¨guent la violation, en raison des faits susvisÃ©s, de l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel . En ce qui concerne la deuxiÃ¨me partie de la requÃªte, les requÃ©rants soumettent le grief complÃ©mentaire suivant : Les dÃ©cisions des commissions provinciales de Hollande du Nord et de Hollande mÃ©ridionale les ont effectivement privÃ©s de leur droit de se prÃ©senter aux Ã©lections . En vertu des articles 90 et 152 de la Constitution nÃ©erlandaise, une telle dÃ©cision ne peut Ã©tre prise que par un magistrat ; or, lesdites commissions n'ont pas cette qualitÃ©' .
- La dAchAance du dro.t d'2tre candidat Ã des alections oeur, en lail,-BVe orononcAe en tant que peine accessoire larticle 28 (2) du Code oAnall .
Les requÃ©rants demandent Ã la Commission d'intervenir pour leur garantie la pleine jouissance des droits fondamentaux susvisÃ©s .
EN DROI T Les requÃ©rants se plaignent que les autoritÃ©snÃ©erlandaises ont,â¢d'une part en les condamnant pour avoir Ã©tÃ© trouvÃ©s en possession, en vue .deles distribuer, de tracts considÃ©rÃ©s comme incitant Ã la discrimination raciale, d'autre part en les empÃªchant de se :.prÃ©senter aux Ã©lections municipales d'Amsterdam et de La Haye, mÃ©connu leurs droits fondamentaux reconnus par la Convention . La Commission considÃ©re ._que ces griefs concernent principalement l'article 10 de la Convention et l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel .
Sur Yartic% 10 de /a Conventio n L'article 10 de la Convention dispose ce qui suit : Â« 1 . Toute personne a droit .Ã la libertÃ© d'expression . Ce droit comprend la libenÃ© d'opinion et la libertÃ©,.de . recevoirou de communiquer des â¢ informations ou des idÃ©es, sansqu :il puisse y avoir ingÃ©rence d'autoritÃ©s publiques et sans considÃ©ration defrontiÃ©res . Le prÃ©sent article n'empÃªche pas les Etats de soumettre~les entreprises de radiodiffusion, de cinÃ©ma ou de tÃ©lÃ©vision Ã un rÃ©gime d'autorisation . 2 . L'exercice de ces libertÃ©s comportant des devoirs et des responsabilitÃ©s peut Ãªtre soumis Ã certaines formalitÃ©s, conditions, restrictions ou sanctions prÃ©vues par la loi, qÃ»i constituent des mesures nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, 9 .la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã l'intÃ©gritÃ© territoriale ou Ã la sÃ¹retÃ©publique, Ã la .dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention du crime, Ã la protection de la santÃ© oude la morale, Ã la protection de la rÃ©putation ou des droits'd'autrui, pour empÃªcher la divulgation d'informations confidentielles ou .pour garantir l'autoritÃ© et l'impartialitÃ© du pouvoir judiciaire . Â» Les diverses mesurescontestÃ©es - la condamnation des requÃ©rants et les dÃ©cisions d'invaliderles listesÃ©lectorales sur lesquelles leur nom figurait - ont constituÃ©, le Gouvernement ne le nie pas, des ingÃ©rences des autoritÃ©s publiques dans l'exercicede la libertÃ© d'expression reconnue par le paragraphe 1 de l'article susvisÃ© . La Commission :rappelle que la CoureuropÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, dans l'Affaire Handyside larrÃ¨t du 7 dÃ©cembre :1976, SÃ©rie A, NÂ° 24, par . 49), a dÃ©clarÃ© que la libertÃ©d'expression constitue l'un des fondements essentiels d'une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, l'une des conditions primordiales de son progrÃ©s et de l'Ã©panouissement de chacun . La Cour poursuivait en ces termes : Â« Sou s
-204_
rÃ©serve du paragraphe 2 de l'article 10, elle vaut non seulement pour les 'informations' ou 'idÃ©es' accueillies avec faveur ou considÃ©rÃ©es comme inoffensives ou indiffÃ©rentes, mais aussi pour celles qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiÃ©tent l'Etat ou une fraction quelconque de la population . Ainsi le veulent le pluralisme, la tolÃ©rance et l'esprit d'ouverture, sans lesquels il n'est pas de 'sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique' x . La Cour considÃ©re Ã©galement, dans l'arrÃªt susvisÃ© que Â« quiconque exerce sa libenÃ© d'expression assume 'des devoirs et des responsabilitÃ©s' dont l'Ã©tendue dÃ©pend de sa situation et du procÃ©dÃ© technique utilisÃ© u . La Commission est d'avis que les devoirs et les responsabilitÃ©s susmentionnÃ©s sont exprimÃ©s d'une maniÃ©re encore plus nette dans une disposition de caractÃ©re plus gÃ©nÃ©ral, Ã savoir l'article 17 de la Convention, libellÃ© comme suit : Â« Aucune des dispositions de la prÃ©sente Convention ne peut Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ©e comme impliquant pour un Etat, un groupement ou un individu, un droit quelconque de se livrer Ã une activitÃ© ou d'accomplir un acte visant Ã la destruction des droits ou libertÃ©s reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention ou Ã des limitations plus amples de ces droits et libenÃ©s que celles prÃ©vues Ã ladite Convention . Â» Le but gÃ©nÃ©ral de l'article 17 est d'empÃªcher que des groupements totalitaires puissent exploiter en leur faveur les principes posÃ©s par la Convention . Pour atteindre ce but, il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de priver de tous les droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention les individus dont on constate qu'ils .se livrent Ã des activitÃ©s visant Ã dÃ©truire l'un quelconque de ces droits et libertÃ©s . L'article 17 vise essentiellement les droits qui permettraient, si on les invoquait, d'essayer d'en tirer le droit de se livrer effectivement Ã des activitÃ©s visant Ã la destruction des droits ou libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention (cf . affaire Â« Lawless n (fond), arrÃªt du 1â¢ 1 juillet 1961, Â« En Droit Â», paragraphe 6, p . 45) . C'est en ayant Ã l'esprit ces considÃ©rations que la Commission a examinÃ© les griefs des requÃ©rants Ã l'origine deq.Letracuis la condamnation des requÃ©rants s'adresse , dans son intitulÃ©, aux Â« NÃ©erlandais de race blanche n . On peut y lire des phrases telles que :Â« voici longtemps que la majoritÃ© de nos concitoyens en ont assez de la prÃ©sence, dans notre pays, de centaines de milliers de Surinamiens, de Turcs et autres prÃ©tendus travailleurs invitÃ©s, desquels, au surplus, nous n'avons que faire ; . . . il faut tout simplement que les autoritÃ©s veillent Ã ce que ces Ã©trangers indÃ©sirables quittent notre pays au plus vite Â» . Plus loin, le tract proclame x que la NVU poursuivra sa lutte en faveur des personnes de race blanche aux Pays-Bas jusqu'9 ce que le pouvoi r
politique de (certains partis politiques) et d'autres groupes connexes ait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©finitivement brisÃ© . DÃ¨s que la Ã® Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» aura conquis le pouvoir politique dans notre pays, elle mettra de l'ordre dans les affaires et, pour commencer . expulsera des Pays-Bas les Surinamiens, les Turcs et autres travailleur s :1 prÃ©tendus invitÃ©s . . . Â» Ainsi, la politique prÃ©conisÃ©e par les requÃ©rants est inspirÃ©e par le souci gÃ©nÃ©ral de faire en sorte que toutes les personnes qui ne sont pas de race blanche quittent le territoire nÃ©erlandais, et ce sans aucun Ã©gard Ã leur nationalitÃ©, au temps depuis lequel elles rÃ©sident dans le pays, Ã leurs liens familiaux, et au mÃ©pris des considÃ©rations sociales, Ã©conomiques, humanitaires ou autres . La Commission considÃ¨re que cette politique contient manifestement des Ã©lÃ©ments de discrimination raciale, laquelle est interdite aux termes de la Convention et d'autres accords internationaux . L'article 14 de la Convention dispose que la jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention doit Ã©tre assurÃ©e sans distinction aucune, fondÃ©e notamment sur la race ou la couleur . La Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© naguÃ©re que la discrimination fondÃ©e sur la race peut, dans certaines circonstances, Ãªtre assimilÃ©e Ã un traitement dÃ©gradant au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention Icf . dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes NÂ° 4403/70 et autres, Affaires des Asiatiques d'Afrique orientale, Recueil 36, pp . 92, 117) . Le QuatriÃ©me Protocole Ã la Convention stipule que nul ne peut Ãªtre expulsÃ©, par voie de mesure individuelle ou collective, du territoire de l'Elat dont il est le ressortissant, et que les expulsions collectives d'Ã©trangers sont interdites . Certes, les Pays-Bas n'ont pas adhÃ©rÃ© Ã ce Protocole, mais rien ne les empÃªche d'adopter, de leur propre initiative ou au titre d'obligations internationales autres que celles dÃ©coulant du QuatriÃ©me Protocole, des mesures tendant Ã assurer le respect de ces droits . D'ailleurs, le Gouvernement a attirÃ© l'attention de la Commission, en particulier Ã la lumiÃ©re de l'article 60 de la Convention, sur les obligations internationales des Pays-Bas au titre de la Convention internationale sur l'Ã©limination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale (1965), Ã laquelle les Pays-Bas ont adhÃ©rÃ© en 1971 . Si elles permettaient aux requÃ©rants de proclamer leurs idÃ©es en toute libertÃ© et impunitÃ©, les autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises encourageraient certainement la discrimination interdite par les dispositions susvisÃ©es de la Convention europÃ©Ã©nne des Droits de l'Homme, et par la Convention de New-York de 1965, susmentionnÃ©e . La Commission considÃ©re que le fait, pour les requÃ©rants, d'exprimer leurs idÃ©es politiques constitue manifestement une activitÃ©, au sens de l'article 17 de la Convention .
Les requÃ©rants cherchent essentiellement Ã utiliser l'article 10 pour fonder sur la Convention un droit de se livrer Ã des activitÃ©s qui, on l'a montrÃ© plus haut, sont contraires Ã la lettre et Ã l'esprit de la Convention, droit qui, s'il Ã©tait accordÃ©, contribuerait Ã la destructiondes droits et GbertÃ©s susmentionnÃ©s . En consÃ©quence, la Commission estime qu'en vertu des dispositions de l'article 17 de la Convention les requÃ©rants ne peuvent pas se prÃ©valoir des dispositions de l'article 10 de la Convention .
Sur l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel L'article 3 du Protocole additionnel dispose ce qui suit : Â« Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent Ã organiser, Ã des intervalles raisonnables, des Ã©lections libres au scrutin secret, dans les conditions qui assurent la libre expressionde l'opinion du peuple sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatif . n La Commission rappelle qu'elle a dÃ©jÃ© trouvÃ© que l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel garantit, en principe, le droit de vote et le droit de se porter candidat lors de l'Ã©lection du corps lÃ©gislatif IDÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 6745/74 et 6746/74 c/Belgique, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 2, p . 1101 . Toutefois, en l'espÃ¨ce, la question pourrait se poser de savoir si le conseil municipal, en droit nÃ©erlandais, est investi d'attributions normatives telles qu'il puisse se considÃ©rer comme un Â« corps lÃ©gislatif Â», au sens de cette disposition Icf . requi:tes NÂ° 6745/74 et 6746/74, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 2, p . 40) . Cependant, la Commission ne juge pas nÃ©cessaire de trancher pareille question ; elle considÃ©re en effet que les requÃ©rants avaient l'intention de se prÃ©senter Ã ces Ã©lections et de faire usage du droit susvisÃ© dans un but que la Commission vient de dÃ©clarer inacceptable en vertu de l'article 17, quant aux griefs tirÃ©s de l'article 10 de la Convention . Il est vrai que les requÃ©rants n'entendaient pas se prÃ©senter aux Ã©lections susvisÃ©es pour le compte de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie n . Toutefois, la Commission fait observer que les dirigeants politiques de la NVU ont dÃ©clarÃ© - c'est lÃ un point Ã©tabli par le tribunal rÃ©gional d'Amsterdam qu'ils souhaitaient poursuivre leurs buts et leurs objectifs, mÃªme s'ils ne le faisaient pas formellement pour le compte de cette association . La Commission rappelle en outre le point de vue de la commission Ã©lectorale centrale de La HaYe, selon lequel les buts politiques sous-jacents Ã la liste prÃ©sentÃ©e par les requÃ©rants Ã©taient identiques Ã ceux de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie n ; elle constate Ã©galement que la commission Ã©lectorale centrale d'Amsterdam s'est, elle aussi, prÃ©value de la conclusion susvisÃ©e du tribunal rÃ©gional d'Amsterdam, selon laquelle les requÃ©rants n'avaient pas l'intention de se dissocier de la plate-forme politique de la Â« Nederlandse Volks Unie Â» . Le s
requÃ©rants n'ont soumis aucun Ã©lÃ©ment tendant Ã infirmer ce point . Au surplus, la Commission fait observer, en se rÃ©fÃ©rant aux dÃ©cisions motivÃ©es des diverses autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises, que rien ne permet, par ailleurs, de qualifier le rejet de la liste d'acte arbitraire . La Commission considÃ¨re par consÃ©quent qu'8 supposer mÃªme que l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel soit applicable en l'espÃ©ce, les requÃ©rants nspeuvent se prÃ©valoir du droit reconnu par cette disposition, eu Ã©gÃ¢rd Ã ~I'article 17 de la Convention . En conclusion, la Commission estime que les requÃ©rants, vu les dispositions de l'article 17 de la Convention, ne peuvent invoquer ni l'article 10 de la Convention, ni l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel . II s'ensuit que les requÃªtes sont incompatibles avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LES REOUETESIRRECEVABLES .
_206_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 11/10/1979Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page