Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770301-678274
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 09:39:46+00:00
Document Index: 94850344

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 10", "l'article 10", "l'article 10", '§ 137', '§ 43', "l'article 10", '§ 140', '§ 49', 'in fine', '§ 481', "l'article 10", '§ 48', '§ 154', '§ 48', 'in fine', '§ 49', '§ 1531', "l'article 10", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", '§ 9', "l'article 14", '§ 56', "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 10", "l'article 7", "l'article 7", "l'article 10", "l'article 27", 'in fine', 'in fine']

X., Y. et Z. c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche X., Y. et Z. c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6782/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-03-01;6782.74 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X., Y. et Z.Défendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATIONS/REQUETES NÂ° 6782/74, 6783/74 et 6784/74 X ., Y . and Z . v/BELGIU M X ., Y . et Z . c/BELGIQU E
DECISION of 1 March 1977 on the admissibility of the applications DECISION du 1^ 1 mars 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªte s
Article 7 of the Convention : Conviction based on provision in the penal code referring to acrs of the type of which the applicanrs are accused . Article 10, paragraph 1 of the Convention : Conviction of persons for having circulated a publication relating to the activities of an association in which they are involved, constitutes an interference with their righr to impart information and ideas. Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention : It is not possible to find in the domestic law of the Contracting Parties any uniform conception of "morals" . In rhis respect the Commission leaves to the national authorities a margin of appreciation and contro%s the exercise of their discretio n Article 14 of the Convention : Differences between the solutions found to disputes by various judges are inherent in the existence of a democratic and liberal society in which the judges have freedom to make a personal appreciation of the facts of a case .
Article 7 de la Convention : Condamnation fondÃ©e sur une disposition pÃ©nafe visant des actes du genre de ceux qui Ã©tatÃ©nt reprochÃ©s aux requÃ©rants . Article 10, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Est une atteinte au droit de communiquer des informations et des idÃ©es une condamnation pronancÃ©e contre des personnes pour avoir diffusÃ© une publication se rapportant Ã l'activitÃ© d'une association qu'elles animent . Article 10, paragraphe 2, de fa Convention : On ne peut dÃ©gager du droit interne des Etats contractants une notion europÃ©enne de la Â« morale Â» . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission reconnait une marge d'apprÃ©ciation aux autoritÃ©s nationales et contrÃ´le l'usage qui en est fait .
Artic% 14 de la Convention : Des diffÃ©rences entre les solurions apportÃ©es aux litiges par des juges diffÃ©rents sont inhÃ©rentes Ã© l'existence d'une sociÃ©rÃ© dÃ©mocratique et libÃ©rale dans laquelle les juges disposent d'une liberrÃ© dapprÃ©ciation personnelle des faits .
(English : see p . 181
Les requÃ©rants X ., V. et Z. font parrie des organes exÃ©curifs de l'associarion V, donr le siÃ©ge est B Bruxelles et qui exerce son activitÃ© dans le domaine du planning familial et de l'Ã©ducation sexuelle . L'association reÃ§oit et di//use gratuitement parmi ses membres le pÃ©riodique illustrÃ© S . . ., pubfiÃ© aux Pays-Bas. En juin 1971, 15 exemplaires de fa revue S . . . ont Ã©tÃ© saisis sur ordre du parquet de Bruxelles dans les locaux d'une organisation de jeunesse Ã Bruxelles . Le mÃªme jour, 1 00 exemplaires de la mÃªme revue ont Ã©tÃ© saisis au siÃ©ge de l'association V. Les trois requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© poursuivis sur base des articles 383 Idiffusion d'Ã©crits ou images contraires aux bonnes mÃ¦ursl et 385 (outrage public aux mÅursl du code pÃ©nal belge . Par jugement rendu en avril 1973, le tribunal correctionnel de Bruxelles les acquitta . Sur appel du ministÃ©re public, la cour d'appel de Bruxelles, par arrÃ©t rendu en novembre 1973, les reconnut coupable et les condamna Ã© des amendes de 1 500 Ã 3 000 francs belges ; elle prononÃ§a la confiscation des revues saisies . Les pourvois formÃ©s par les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©s par la Cour de cassation en avril 1974 .
EN DROI T 1 Les requÃ©rants se plaignent d'avoir Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©s par les tribunaux belges pour avoir diffusÃ© des exemplaires de la revue Â« S . . . Â» . Ils se prÃ©tendent victimes, de ce fait, d'une violation de l'article 10 de la Convention, ainsi conÃ§u : Â« 1 . Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© d'expression . Ce droit comprend la libertÃ© d'opinion et la libertÃ© de recevoir ou de communiquer des informations ou des indÃ©es sans qu'il puisse y avoir ingÃ©rence d'autoritÃ©s publiques et sans considÃ©ration de frontiÃ©re . 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'autorisations . 2 . L'exigence de ces libertÃ©s comportant des devoirs et des responsabilitÃ©s peut Ã©tre soumis Ã certaines formalitÃ©s, conditions, restrictions ou sanctions, prÃ©vues par la loi, qui constituent des mesures nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã l'intÃ©gritÃ© territoriale ou Ã la sOret Ã©
publique, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention du crime, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de 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 . n Quant Ã l'interprÃ©tatlon de celte disposition la Commission se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã sa propre jurisprudence Icf . notamment son rapport du 30 septembre 1975 sur la requÃªte NÂ° 5493/72, Handyslde c/Royaume-Uni - ci-aprÃ©s : Rapportl et Ã celle de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme IAffaire Handyside, arrÃªt du 7 dÃ©cembre 1976 - ci-aprÃ©s : ArrÃ©tl . Aux termes de l'article 10 prÃ©citÃ©, la libertÃ© d'expression comprend notamment la libertÃ© de communiquer des informations ou des idÃ©es . Or les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© . condamnÃ©s Ã des peines d'amende pour avoir diffusÃ© une publication qui Ã©tait couramment utilisÃ©e comme moyen d'information par l'association pour la rÃ©forme sexuelle dont ils sont des animateurs . La Commission est d'avis que ces condamnations ont portÃ© atteinte au droit des requÃ©rants de communiquer des informations ou des idÃ©es, c'est-Ã©-dire Ã leur libertÃ© d'expression, telle qu'elle est dÃ©finie au paragraphe 1 de l'article 10 . La libertÃ© d'expression ne peut Ã©tre restreinte que dans la mesure oÃ¹ c'est nÃ©cessaire au maintien des valeurs protÃ©gÃ©es par le paragraphe 2 dudit article (Rapport, Â§ 137 ; ArrÃ©t Â§ 43) . II convient dÃ©s lors d'examiner si les sanctions infligÃ©es aux requÃ©rants Ã©taient prÃ©vues par la loi et si elles Ã©taient nÃ©cessaires dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, pour l'un des motifs Ã©noncÃ©s Ã l'article 10, paragraphe 2, eu Ã©gard aux Â« devoirs Â» et Â« responsabilitÃ©s n que comporte l'exercice de la libertÃ© d'expression . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission et la Cour ont dÃ©jÃ eu l'occasion de souligner que, dans l'apprÃ©ciation des restrictions admissibles, il faut donc tenir compte de la situation particuliÃ©re de la personne qui exerce sa libertÃ© d'expression, ainsi que des devoirs et responsabilitÃ©s attachÃ©s Ã cette situation (cf . Rapport, Â§Â§ 140 et 141 ; ArrÃªt, Â§ 49 in fine) . En l'espÃ©ce, les requÃ©rants s'occupent notamment de promouvoir l'Ã©ducation sexuelle des jeunes . On peut donc attendre d'eux qu'ils vouent une attention particuliÃ¨re Ã la qualitÃ© des publications qu'ils dilfusent et qu'ils veillent Ã ne point rÃ©pandre des documents versant dans la publicitÃ© pornographique . Toute restriction Ã la libertÃ© d'expression doit Ãªtre prÃ©vue par la loi . Or, il est incontestable qu'en l'espÃ©ce les sanctions litigieuses sont prÃ©vues par les articles 383 et 385 du Code pÃ©nal belge . Le Gouvernement mis en cause soutient, en bref, que les sanctions infligÃ©es Ã©taient nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la protection de la morale . La Commission rappelle que le mÃ©canisme de sauvegarde instaurÃ© par la Convention revÃªt un caractÃ©re subsidiaire par rapport aux systÃ¨mes nationaux Icf . ArrÃªt, Â§ 481 . En ce qui concerne la notion de Â« morale Â» visÃ©e au paragraphe 2 de l'article 10, la Cour a relevÃ© qu'on ne peut dÃ©gager du droit interne des divers Etats contractants une notion europÃ©enne uniforme de la Â« morale Â» . L'idÃ©e que les lois internes se font des exigences de la morale varie dans le temps e t
l'espace . GrÃ¢ce Ã leurs contacts avec les forces vives de leur pays, les autoritÃ©s de l'Etat se trouvent mieux placÃ©es que le juge international pour se prononcer sur le contenu prÃ©cis de ces exigences comme sur la Â« nÃ©cessitÃ© Â» d'une Â« restriction Â» destinÃ©e Ã y rÃ©pondre Icf . ArrÃ©t, Â§ 48, 2Â° al . ; cf . Ã©galement Rapport Â§ 154) . Selon la Cour, l'anicle 10, paragraphe 2, rÃ©serve aux Etats contractants une marge d'apprÃ©ciation qui n'est cependant pas illimitÃ©e . Les organes de la Convention on compÃ©tence pour contrÃ´ler l'Ã©tendue des restrictions imposÃ©es et l'exercice de cette marge d'apprÃ©ciation Icf . ArrÃªt Â§ 48 in fine et Â§ 49, 1Â° al . ; Rapport Â§ 1531 . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission remarque aue la cour d'appel de Bruxelles a fait un examen dÃ©taillÃ© des publications litigieuses et n'a fondÃ© sa dÃ©cision que sur certaines d'entre elles . A cet Ã©gard, les juges d'appel ont montrÃ© un souci de prÃ©cision que le juge de premiÃ¨re instance ne semble pas avoir Ã©prouvÃ© . En effet, le Tribunal correctionnel avait considÃ©rÃ© l'ensemble des publications incriminÃ©es pour conclure Ã leur caractÃ¨re acceptable au regard des impÃ©ratifs imposÃ©s par les bonnes mÃ¦urs . La cour d'appel, au contraire, n'a retenu qu'un certain nombre de revues en raison de certaines images dÃ©terminÃ©es qui s'y trouvent . C'est pourquoi la cour d'appel a pu relever comme circonstance aggravante le fait que les numÃ©ros litigieux de cette revue ont Ã©tÃ© diffusÃ©s Ã des mineurs . AprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© elle-mÃªme les publications litigieuses, la Commission peut se rallier, d'une maniÃ©re gÃ©nÃ©rale, Ã l'opinion exprimÃ©e par la cour d'appel et estime que les sanctions incriminÃ©es peuvent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique Ã la protection de la morale . L'examen de ce grief ne permet donc de dÃ©celer aucune apparence de violation de l'article 10 . 2 . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent que leur condamnation constitue un acte discriminatoire contraire Ã l'article 14 de la Convention, en raison des diffÃ©rentes interprÃ©tations de la loi, variant d'une ville Ã l'autre ou d'un magistrat Ã l'autre, d'oÃ¹ rÃ©sulterait une insÃ©curitÃ© juridique . L'article 14 est ainsi libellÃ© : a La jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention doit Ãªtre assurÃ©e, sans distinction aucune, fondÃ©e notamment sur le sexe, la race, la couleur, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques ou toutes autres opinions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance Ã une minoritÃ© nationale, la fortune, la naissance ou toute autre situation . Â» La Commission rappelle que l'article 14 ne consacre le principe de nondiscrimination que dans la jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention Icf . par exemple NÂ° 2333/64, Ann . 8, pp . 339, 361) . Cela ne signifie cependant pas qu'il soit nÃ©cessaire de constater au prÃ©alable une violation de l'un de ces droits pour que l'article 14 puisse Ãªtre appliquÃ© . Ainsi que la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme l'a jugÃ©, une mesure, conforme en elle-mÃªm e
aux exigences de l'article consacrant un droit ou une libertÃ©, peut enfreindre cet article combinÃ© avec l'article 14 pour le motif qu'elle revÃªt un caractÃ©re discriminatoire IAffaire relative Ã certains aspects du rÃ©gime linguistique de l'enseignement en Belgique, ArrÃ¨t du 23 juillet 1968, partie EN DROIT, Titre IB, Â§ 9) . Dans son arrÃ©t Kjeldsen, Madsen et Pedersen, du 7 dÃ©cembre 1976, la Cour souligne que l'article 14 interdit, dans le domaine des droits et libertÃ©s garantis, un traitement discriminatoire ayant pour base ou pour motif une caractÃ©ristique personnelle la situation Â»I par laquelle des personnes ou groupes de personnes se distinguent les unes des autres larrÃ©t, Â§ 56) . Des diffÃ©rences entre les solutions apportÃ©es aux litiges par les divers juges d'un mÃªme ressort ou par les juges de ressorts diffÃ©rents s'expliquent souvent par la spÃ©cificitÃ© des cas d'espÃ¨ce qui, en dÃ©pit de similitudes apparentes, reposent sur des faits diffÃ©rents . En outre, Ã supposer mÃªme que l'on se trouve en face de litiges absolument identiques, la diffÃ©rence de traitement qui peut rÃ©sulter des divergences entre plusieurs juridictions dans un mÃªme pays est inhÃ©rente Ã l'existence d'une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique et libÃ©rale dans laquelle les juges disposent d'une libertÃ© d'apprÃ©ciation personnelle des faits de la cause sous le contrÃ´le de l'organe de cassation en ce qui concerne l'application du droit . De telles divergences, Ã moins qu'elles tÃ©moignent d'arbilraire ou d'une volontÃ© de favoriser ou de dÃ©favoriser certaines personnes ou certains groupes de personnes en raison d'une caractÃ©ristique personnelle, ne constituent pas des discriminations, au sens de l'article 14 de la Convention . En l'espÃ©ce, les requÃ©rants n'ont nullement dÃ©montrÃ© que les juridictions belges qui ont eu Ã connaÃ®tre de leur affaire avaient fait preuve d'arbitraire ou tÃ©moignÃ© d'une dÃ©faveur Ã leur endroit . L'examen de ce grief ne permet donc de dÃ©celer aucune apparence de violation de l'article 14 combinÃ© avec l'article 10 de la Convention . 3 . Les requÃ©rants allÃ©guent que les faits Ã raison desquels ils ont Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©s ne constituent pas une infraction ni d'aprÃ¨s les principes de la morale europÃ©enne ni en droit belge Ils invoquent Ã ce sujet l'article 7 de la Convention, dont le premier paragraphe stipul e Â« Nul ne peut Ãªtre condamnÃ© pour une action ou une omission qui, au moment oÃ¹ elle a Ã©tÃ© commise, ne constituait pas une infraction d'aprÃ©s le droit national ou international . De mÃªme il n'est infligÃ© aucune peine plus forte que celle qui Ã©tait applicable au moment oÃ¹ l'infraction a Ã©tÃ© commise Â» En ce qui concerne ce que les requÃ©rants nomment Â« les principes de la morale europÃ©enne Â», la Commission renvoie au premier considÃ©rant de la prÃ©sente dÃ©cision . Quant au droit belge, elle constate que les articles 383 et 385 du code pÃ©nal Ireproduits dans la partie Â« en fait Â» de la prÃ©sente dÃ©cisionl constituent l'instrument appropriÃ© par lequel les autoritÃ©s belges ont restreint la libertÃ© d'expressio n
des requÃ©rants . Ces derniers n'ont nullement montrÃ© que ces dispositions ne visaient pas des actes du genre de ceux qui leur Ã©taient reprochÃ©s . Il n'y a donc pas apparence de violation de l'article 7 prÃ©citÃ© . 4 . Les requÃ©rants semblent Ã©galement se plaindre que les autoritÃ©s belges auraient enfreint Ã leur endroit les articles 17 et 18 de la Convention . La Commission ayant reconnu que les condamnations prononcÃ©es contre les requÃ©rants constituaient une sanction lÃ©gitime, Ã teneur de l'article 10, par . 2, de la Convention, pour la protection de la morale, il n'y a pas apparence de violation des articles 17 et 18 en l'espÃ©c e Il s'ensuit que les requÃ©tes sont manifestement mal fondÃ©es, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE LES REQUETESIRRECEVABLES .
Summary of the facts Applicants X ., Y. and Z. form part of the executive organs of association V., whose headquarters are in Brussels and whose activities concern family planning and sexual education. The association receives and circulates free of charge among its members a periodical S ., published in the Netherlands . In June 1971, 15 copies of the periodical S . were seized on the basrs of an order from the Brussels' Public Prosecutor's Office at the premises of a youth organisation in Brussels . On rhe same day, 100 copies of the same periodicaf were seized at the headquaners of association V. The three applicants were prosecuted on the basis of Articles 383 (distribution of immoral literature or pictures) and 385 (public outrage of "morals") of the Belgian Penal Code. By judgment delivered in April 1973, the Criminal Court of Brussels acquitted the applicants. The Public Prosecutor lodged an appeal, and the Court of Appeal of Brussefs, by judgment of November 1973, held them responsible and sentenced them to fines of 1500 to 3 007 Belgian francs ; it ordered the confrscation of the seized periodicals . The pleas of nullity introduced by the applicants were dismissed by the Court of Cassation in April 1974 .
(TRANSLATION ) THE LA W 1 . The applicants complain that they were convicted by the Belgian courts for distributing copies of the periodical "S ." . They allege that they were consequently victims of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, which reads : "1 . Everyone has the right to freedom of expression . This right shall include the freedom to hold opinlons 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 licencing 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, or the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights ot others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for mainlaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary . " With regard to the interpretation of this provision, the Commission refers to its own case-law Isee, for example, its report of 30 September 1975 on Application No . 5493/72, Handyside agamst United Kingdom - referred to hereafter as : Reportl and to that of the European Court of Human Rights (Handyside case, judgment of 7 December 1976 - referred to hereafter as : Judgment) . In the terms of Article 10 quoted above, freedom of expression includes the freedom to imparl information or ideas . Now the applicants were sentenced to fines for circulating a publication regularly used as a medium of information by the association tor sexual reform of which they are the prime movers . The Commission is of the opinion that these sentences derogated from the applicants' right to impart information or ideas, in other words from their righl to freedom of expression as sel forth in paragraph 1 of Article 10 . Freedom of expression may only be restricted in so far as this is necessary for preserving the values protected in paragraph 2 of the same Article fReport, para . 137 ; Judgment, para . 43) . It is therefore appropriate to consider whether the penalties imposed on the applicants were prescribed by law and whether they were necessary in a democratic society for any of the criteria enumerated in Article 10 121 having regard to the "duties" and "responsibilities" which ihe exercise of freedom of expression carries with it . In this respect, the Commission and the Court have already had occasion to point out that an assessment of the restrictions which are admissible must take into account the particular situation of ihe person exercising freedom of expression and the duties and responsibilities attaching to that situation Isee Report, paras . 140 and 141 ; Judgment, para . 4 9
in fine) . In the case in point, the applicants are engaged in promoling sex education for young people . It may therefore be expected of them that they pay particular attention to the quality of the publications which they circulate and that they take care not to distribute material which degenerates into pornographic publicit y Any restriction on the freedom of expression must be prescribed by law . Now there is no doubt that in the case in point the penalties complained of are prescribed by Articles 383 and 385 of the Belgian Penal Code . The respondent Government submits that the penalties imposed were necessary in a democratic society for the protection of morals . The Commission recalls that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to national systems (see Judgment, para . 48) . With regard to the notion of "morals" as referred to in Article 10 (2), the Court pointed out that it is not possible to find in the domestic law of the various Contracting States any uniform European conception of "morals" . The view taken by municipal law of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place . By reason of their contact with the vital forces of their countries, state authorities are in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" intended to meet them (see Judgment, para . 48, second sub-para . ; see also Report, para . 1541 . According to the Court, Article 10 (2) leaves to the Contracting States a margin of appreciation which, however, is not unlimited . The organs of the Convention are empowered to control the extent of the restrictions imposed and to review the exercise of that discretion (see Judgment, para . 48 in fine and para . 49, first sub-para . ; Report, para . 1531 . In the present case, the Commission observes that the Brussels court of appeal made a detailed examination of the publications in dispute and based its decision on certain of them only . In this respect, the appeal judges showed a desire for precision which the trial judge does not seem to have felt . For the criminal court had considered the whole of the publications objected to in reaching its decision that they were acceptable in relation to moral requirements . The court of appeal, on the other hand, considered only a certain number of periodicals by reason of certain specific pictures contained in them . Hence the court of appeal cited as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the disputed issues of this periodical had been circulated to minors . After having itself examined the publications objected to, the Commission can support, generally speaking, the opinion expressed by the court of appeal and considers that the penalties complained of may be regarded as necessary, in a democratic society, for the protection of morals . The consideration of this complaint therefore does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 10 .
2 The applicants complain tnat their conviction constitutes an act of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention by reason of the ditterent interpretations of the law, which vary from one town to another or from one magistrate to another, thus giving rise to a certain legal insecurity . Article 14 reads as follows : "The enjoyment of the rights and ireedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status . " The Commission recalls that Article 14 lays down the principle of nondiscrimination only in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention (see for example No . 2333/64, Yearbook B . page 360) . That does not mean . however, that it is necessary to establish a violation of one of these rights in advance for Article 14 to be appGcable . As the European Court of Human Rights has ruled, a measure which in itself is in conformity with the requlrements of the Article enshrining a right or freedom may infringe this Article when read in conjunction with Article 14 for the reason that it is of a discriminatory nature (Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, Judgment of 23 July 1968, "The Law", No . IB, para . 91 . In its judgment of 7 December 1976 in the Kjeldsen, Madsen and Pedersen case, the Court points out that Article 14 prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal characteristic ("slatus") by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each other IJudgment, para . 561 . Differences between the solutions found to the disputes by the various judges at the same level of jurisdiction or by judges at different levels of jurisdiction are often explained by the specific features of the cases in question which, despite apparent similarities, are based on different facts . Moreover, assuming the presence of disputes which are absolutely identical, the difference in treatment which may result from the differences between various courts in one and the same country is inherent in the existence of a democratic and liberal society in which the judges have the freedom to make a personal appreciation of the iacts of the case, subject to control by the cassation body concerned with the observance of the law . Unless such differences display an arbitrary character or an intention to favour or preiudice certain persons or certain groups of persons by reason of a personal characteristic, they do not constitute discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention . In the case in point, the apolicants have brought no evidence to show that the Belgian courts dealing with their case had displayed an arbitrary or prejudiced attitude towards the m The examination of this complaint therefore does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the ~on .â¢cr.t'on . - 21 -
3 . The applicants allege that the facts on which they were convicted do not constitute an offence either according to the principles of European morality or Belgian law . They invoke in this respect Article 7 of the Convention, of which the first paragraph reads : "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed "
With regard to what the applicants call "the principles of European morality", the Commission refers to Section I of "The Law" of this decision . As far as Belgian law is concerned, it notes that Articles 383 and 385 of th e Penal Code (reproduced in the "Facts" portion of this decision) constitute the appropriate instrument by which the Belgian authorities restricted the applicants' freedom of expression . The latter have brought no evidence to show that these provisions did not refer to acts of the type of which they were accused . There is therefore no appearance of a violation of Article 7 . 4 . The applicants also appear to complain that the Belgian authorities infringed Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention in their regard . As ihe Commission recognised that the sentence passed on the applicants constituted a lawful penalty within the meaning of Article 10 (2) of the Convention, for the purpose of the protection of morals, there is no appearance of a violation of Articles 17 and 18 in the case in point . It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 121 of the Convention . Now, therefore, the Commissio n
DECLARES THESE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE .
_22_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 01/03/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page