Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19781012-730875
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 05:54:03+00:00
Document Index: 78193717

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 11", "l'article 8", "l'article 19", "l'article 26", "l'article 29", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 11", "l'article 33", "l'article 10", "l'article 10", "l'article 8", "l'article 10", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 13", "l'article 13", "l'article 13", "l'article 29", "l'article 13", "l'article 27", "l'article 30"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7308/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-10-12;7308.75 Analyses : (Art. 13) DROIT A UN RECOURS EFFECTIF, (Art. 34) RECOURS, (Art. 34) VICTIME, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) SECURITE NATIONALE, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA CORRESPONDANCE, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA VIE FAMILIALE, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA VIE PRIVEE, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DU DOMICILE, (Art. 8-2) DEFENSE DE L'ORDRE, (Art. 8-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 8-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 8-2) PREVENTION DES INFRACTIONS PENALESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATIQN/REQUtTE NÂ° 7308/7 5 X . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 12 October 1978 on the admissibility of the applicatio n
DÃCISION du 12 octobre 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article B, paragraph 2 and Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention : An interference is "in accordance with the law" even if it is based on delegated legislation which has been enacted on the basis of a statute stricto sensu . The seizure of magazines depicting adults engaged in homosexual acts with adolescents may be considered on a measure necessary for the protection of morals . Article 10, paragraph 1 of the Convention : Does this provision protect the right to receive unsollicited information? (Question not pursued) . Article 13 of the Convention : This provision guarantees an effective remedy to everyone who claims that a right contained in the Convention has been violated to his detriment (reference to the K/ass judgment, European Court of Human Rights) . Article 26 of the Convention : The rule concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies does not require that an appeal be introduced which would have no chance of success .
Article 8, paragraphe 2, et article 10, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Une ingÃ©rence est rt prÃ©vue par la loi Â» mÃªme si elle se fonde sur une lÃ©gislation dÃ©lÃ©guÃ©e, Ã©dictÃ©e dans le cadre d'une toi, stricto sensu . La confiscation de magazines reprÃ©sentant notamment des actes homosexuels avec des mineurs peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une mesure nÃ©cessaire 8/a protection de la morale . Article 10, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Cette disposition protÃ©ge-t-el% un droit de recevoir des informations que l'on n'a pas sollicitÃ©es? IQuestion non rÃ©soluel .
Article 13 de la Convention : Cette disposition reconnaÃ®t le droit Ã un recours interne Ã© quinconque allÃ©gue qu'un droit garanti par la Convention a Ã©tÃ© violÃ© Ã son dÃ©triment IrÃ©fÃ©rence Ã© l'arrÃªt Klass, Cour EuropÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme) . Article 26 de le Convention : La rÃ¨gle de f'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes n'exige pas l'exercice d'un recours manifestement dÃ©pourvu de toutes chances de succÃ©s .
I franÃ§ais : voir p . 371
In 1975 two packets were sent through the post from Denmark to London where the applicant was residing . They contained various issues of a pornographic magazine . Upon their arrival in the United Kingdom, the packets were opened by the customs and forwarded to the Post-Office . The Head of the competent postal authority was of the opinion that he was faced with the offence of sending obscene publications through the post (under section 17, paragraphs I and 2 of the Post Office Act 19531 and sent them to the Director of Public prosecutions with a view to the consideration of criminal proceedings, as authon'sed by section 8, paragraph 3 of the above mentionned Act and section 19, paragraph I of the Post Office Overseas Letter Post Scheme 1971 . The applicant was interviewed at the instance of the Director of Public Prosecutions and denied that he had ordered the magazines in question . No prosecution was brought against the applicant, but the police retained the packets . The applicant commenced proceedings in the magistrates Court, but the latter refused to order that the magazines be forwarded to the addressee. On the contrary, it ordered that the magazines were to be held by the police for six months and then destroyed. Subsequently the applicant fifed an action in detinue against the police before the W. County Court . His claim was dismissed, and the Court found that he was unable to show title in the magazines since property is only transferred in a gift, once it is received. The applicant had claimed that the magazines had been sent as a gift from an unknown donor. In a detailed obiter dictum the Court stated that the procedure followed in the case in point was covered by the statutory provisions applicable and that they had been applied correctly having regard to the nature of the magazines and the ordinary meaning of the words "indecent or obscene pubfication".
THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains that the seizure from his mail of certain articles addressed to him which were found to be "obscene or indecent" was unjustified, and that the related procedure does not provide for the guarantees required by the Convention . The Commission must first examine whether in relation to these complaints, the applicant has exhausted the remedies available to him under the domestic law, as required by Article 26 of the Convention . The Commission observes that under the Post Office Act itself there was no remedy available to the applicant since Section 29 provides that the Post Office is immune from proceedings . In the present case, however, the articles in question were forwarded to the police, an authority against whom proceedings can be brought, and the applicant did in fact bring two actions in the Magistrates Court and the County Court . Both failed because the applicant was unable to claim property in material which had been sent to him as a gift . Property in gifts passes only upon receipt . Although it would have been possible for the applicant to appeal further, it must be noted that the Government agree that such appeal would have had no chance of success .
The Commission therefore finds that the applicant must be considered as having exhausted the remedies available to him under the domestic law . 2 . The applicant has alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention which guarantees i .a . everyone's right to respect for his correspondence . There can be no doubt that there has been interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence (Article 8, para . 1) . However, paragraph 2 of this article allows an interference by a publi c Ã¢uthority with this right if such interference is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for any of the purposes there enumerated . In the present case it is in issue whether or not the measure complained of was necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of health and morals . As regards the lawfulness of the seizure, the Commission finds that it was effected under Section 8(3 ) read in conjunction with Section 11 (1) b of the 1953 Post Office Act, and under paragraph 19 (1) of the 1971 Overseas Letter Post Scheme which provide for the treatment of irregular postal packets . The applicant's criticism of the Scheme being an instrument of delegated legislation is irrelevant in this context as it is clear that the Scheme was enacted on the basis of a statute (Section 28 of the Post Office Act 1969), and did not go beyond the possibilities envisaged by the Post Office Act itself . The Commission also notes that the relevant provision o f
the Post Office Act is an implementation of Article 33 of the UPU Convention . There is therefore no doubi as to the lawfulness of the measure complained of . As regards the necessity of the measure in a democratic society, the Commission considers that the seizure of the magazines, copies of which have been furnished by the respondent Government, can be justified as being necessary for the protection of morals . The applicant states that he has a mature attitude to sexual morality and has conducted research into erotica but he has not substantiated this assertion . Moreover, it must be noted that the measures complained of were obviously taken with a view to protect society as a whole . and not the individual concerned . The magazines depict i .a . adult persons engaged in homosexual acts with adolescents and invite the readers to send their own photographs of similar character . The magazines therefore are not only obscene by whatever standard might be applied, but approve of, and even actively propagate acts which are criminal offences in English Law under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Indecency with Child Act 1960 which have their counterparts in the legal systems of most of the other Member States of the Council of Europe . In the Commission's opinion the interference with the applicant's correspondence can indeed be justified in a democratic society as being necessary for the purpose mentioned above . 3 . The same is true with regard to the applicant's complaint under Article 10 of the Convention . Even assuming that the applicant's freedom to receive information (Article 10 I111 includes the right to receive unsolicited material sent to him, an interference with this right was lawful and could be considered as necessary for the protection of morals on the same grounds as the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence . It follows that the interference with the applicant's right to receive information can be justified under Article 10 121 of the Convention . Both the applicant's complaints under Article 8 and under Article 10 of the Convention are therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 12) of the Conventio n 4 . The Commission now has to consider the applicant's complaints concerning the procedure followed by the authorities . a . In this respect the Commission has first examined the applicant's allegation of a denial of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 (2) of the Convention . However, the Commission observes that this provision applies only to a person "charged with a criminal offence" . It is clear that in the present case no criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, and the administrative measures taken can in no way be assimi-
lated to criminal proceedings . It follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, and must be rejected under Article 27 121 . b . Insofar as the applicant has complained that his civil rights and obfigations were not determined by a tribunal as required by Article 6 I11 of the Convention, the Commission observes that the civil right in question was only the applicant's title to the material seized by the Post Office . On this question the applicant did in fact obtain a ruling by the W . County Court which no doubt is a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 (1) . The court came to the conclusion that the applicant had no title, and thereby determined the applicant's civil rights in conformity with the above provision of the Convention which only gives a procedural right of access to a court and to a proper court procedure . The Commission therefore concludes that the applicant's above complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 5 . The applicant has finally complained under Article 13 of the Convention thai he did not dispose of an effective remedy by which he could ensure that any restrictions of his rights under the Convention were applied in conformity with the provisions of the Conventio n Article 13 of the Convention provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity . As has been stated by the Court in the case of Klass and others v . the Federal Republic of Germany IJudgment of 6 September 1978, para . 641 "Article 13 must be interpreted as guaranteeing an 'effective remedy by a national authority' io everyone who claims that his rights and freedoms under the Convention have been violated . " The applicant is entitled, under Article 13, to have the substance of his complaints under Articles 8 and 10, i .e . the lawfulness and ihe necessity of the seizure of the pornographic material, examined by a national authority . It is true that no immediate remedy was available to the applicant in relation to the decision of the Post Office as Section 29 of the Post Office Act 1969 provides for the immunity of the Post Office from any tort proceedings . However, in the applicant's case the Post Office sent the material to the Director of Public Prosecutions who in turn forwarded it to the police . It was therefore possible for the applicant to sue the police which in fact, he did first in the Magistrate's Court in summary proceedings under the Police Property Act 1897, and subsequently by filing an action in detinue with the W . County Court . The latter court, while denying the applicant's title, went into the issue of the lawfulness of the Post Office's decision .
The Commission therefore considers that the applicant has had an effective remedy before a national authority within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention . It follows that this complaint is equally manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons the Commissio n
RÃ©sumÃ© des fait s En 1975, deux paquets postaux furent envoyÃ©s du Danemark au requÃ©rant, rÃ©sidant Ã© Londres . lls contenaienr plusieurs numÃ©ros d'un magazine pornographique. A leur arrivÃ©e au Royaume-Uni, les paquets furent ouverts par la douane puis remis par elle aux services postaux. Le chef du service postal compÃ©tent, estimant qu'il se trouvait en face d'un dÃ©lit de trafic de publications obscÃ©nes Iselon l'article 11, paragraphes 1 et 2, de la loi dite Post Office Act, 1953), remit les paquets au parquet en vue de poursuites pÃ©nales Ã©ventuelles, comme l'y autorise l'article 8, paragraphe 3, de la loi susmentionnÃ©e et l'article 19, paragraphe 1, du RÃ¨glement dit The Post Office Overseas Letters Post Scheme, 1971 . Entendu par la police Ã la demande du parquet, le requÃ©rant affirma qu'il n'avait pas commandÃ© les magazines en question . Le parquet renonÃ§a 8 poursuivre mais les magazines restÃ©renr en main de la police . Le requÃ©rant s'adressa alors Ã la Magtstrates Court, mais celle-ci refusa d'ordonner la remise des magazines 9/eur destinataire . Elle ordonna au conrraire Ã la police de les dÃ©truire aprÃ¨s les avoir conservÃ©s six mois . Sur ce, le requÃ©rant introduisit action en revendication contre la police devant la County Court de W . ll fut dÃ©bourÃ©, le tribunal ayant estimÃ© qu'il n'Ã©tait nullement propriÃ©taire, puisqu'en cas de donation la propriÃ©tÃ© ne passe au donataire que par l'entrÃ©e en possession de la chose. Or, le requÃ©rant affirmait que les magazines constituaient un cadeau d'un donateur inconnu . Dans un obiter dictum dÃ©taillÃ©, le tribunal dÃ©clara que la procÃ©dure appliquÃ©e, en l'occurrence, Ã©rait conforme B la loi et qu'elle avait Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e Ã© juste titre, vu la nature des magazines et l'acceptation usuelle des termes a publications obscÃ©nes Â» . -3 7 -
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant soutient que la saisie opÃ©rÃ©e sur son courrier de certains articles qui lui Ã©taient adressÃ©s et qui ont Ã©tÃ© jugÃ©s Â« obscÃ©nes ou indÃ©cents Â» Ã©taient injustifiÃ©e, et que la procÃ©dure suivie en l'occurence n'offrait pas les garanties requises par la Convention . La Commission doit tout d'abord examiner si, quant Ã ces griefs, le requÃ©rant a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, comme l'exige l'article 26 de la Convention . La Commission observe qu'en vertu de la loi sur les services postaux elle-mÃ©me, aucune voie de recours n'est ouverte au requÃ©rant, puisque l'article 29 stipule que les services postaux ne peuvent Ãªtre actionnÃ©s . Dans le cas prÃ©sent, toutefois, les articles en question ont Ã©tÃ© remis Ã la police, service public contre lequel une action peut Ã©tre engagÃ©e, et le requÃ©rant a effectivement intentÃ© deux actions devant le tribunal d'instance et devant le tribunal d'arrondissement . Ces deux actions ont Ã©chouÃ© parce qu'il ne pouvait revendiquer la propriÃ©tÃ© d'objets qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ©s Ã titre de cadeau . Le droit de propriÃ©tÃ©, dans un tel cas, n'est transmis qu'Ã la rÃ©ception . Bien que le requÃ©rant ait pu se pourvoir en appel, il convient de noter que, de l'avis mÃ¨me du Gouvernement, cet appel n'aurait eu aucune chance de succÃ©s . La Commission estime donc que le requÃ©rÃ¢nt doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes qui lui Ã©taient ouvertes . 2 . Le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention, qui garantit Ã chacun, notamment, le droit au respect de sa correspondance . Il ne fait aucun doute qu'une atteinte a Ã©tÃ© portÃ©e au droit du requÃ©ran t au respect de sa correspondance (article 8, paragraphe 11 . Toutefois, le paragraphe 2 de cet article permet l'ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et est nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, pour l'un ou l'autre des motifs qui y sont Ã©numÃ©rÃ©s . Dans le cas prÃ©sent, la question se pose de savoir si la mesure qui fait l'objet de la requÃªte Ã©tait ou non nÃ©cessaire Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales ou Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale . En ce qui concerne la lÃ©galitÃ© de la saisie, la Commission constate qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©e en application de l'article 8, paragraphe3, , combinÃ© avec l'article 11, paragraphe 1b, de la loi de 1953 sur les services postaux, et du paragraphe 19, premier alinÃ©a, du RÃ©glement sur l'acheminement du courrier outre-mer, qui prÃ©cise le traitement Ã rÃ©server aux colis postaux no n
conformes . La critique formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant selon laquelle ce rÃ©glement serait un instrument de lÃ©gislation par dÃ©lÃ©gation est non fondÃ©e dans ce contexte car il est manifeste que le rÃ©glement a Ã©tÃ© promulguÃ© sur la base d'un texte de loi (article 28 de la loi de 1969 sur les services postaux), et ne va pas au-del8 des possibilitÃ©s envisagÃ©es par elle-mÃªme . La Commission note Ã©galement que la disposition pertinente de la loi sur les Services postaux constitue une mise en c2uvre de l'article 33 de la Convention de l'UPU . Il n'y a donc aucun doute sur la lÃ©galitÃ© de la mesure qui fait l'objet de la requÃªte . En ce qui concerne la nÃ©cessitÃ© de la mesure dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, la Commission considÃ©re que la saisie des revues, dont les exemplaires ont Ã©tÃ© produits par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, peut se justifier comme nÃ©cessaire Ã la protection de la morale . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare envisager avec maturitÃ© la question de la moralitÃ© sexuelle et avoir effectuÃ© des recherches dans le domaine de l'Ã©rotisme, mais n'a prÃ©sentÃ© aucun Ã©lÃ©ment concret Ã l'appui de cette affirmation . En outre, il convient de noter que les mesures contestÃ©es ont de toute Ã©vidence Ã©tÃ© prises en vue de protÃ©ger la sociÃ©tÃ© dans son ensemble, et non la personne concernÃ©e . Les revues montrent notamment des adultes pratiquant des actes homosexuels avec des adolescents et invitent les lecteurs Ã envoyer leurs propres clichÃ©s de mÃªme nature . Ces revues sont donc non seulement obscÃ©nes, quelques critÃ©res que l'on puisse appliquer, mais elles approuvent, et mÃªme s'emploient activement Ã propager des pratiques qui sont des dÃ©lits en droit anglais, en venu de la loi de 1956 sur les dÃ©lits sexuels et de la loi de 1960 sur les atteintes Ã la pudeur des enfants, lesquelles ont leur pendant dans les systÃ©mes juridiques de la plupart des autres Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe . De l'avis de la Commission, l'ingÃ©rence dans la correspondance du requÃ©rant peut effectivement se justifier dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique comme Ã©tant nÃ©cessaire pour les motifs mentionnÃ©s plus haut . 3 . II en va de mÃªme pour ce qui concerne le grief prÃ©sentÃ© par le requÃ©rant au titre de l'article 10 de la Convention . MÃªme en supposant que la libenÃ© du requÃ©rant de recevoir des informations (article 10, paragraphe 1) comporte le droit de recevoir des articles qu'il n'a pas demandÃ©s et qui lui sont adressÃ©s, l'ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice de ce droit Ã©tait licite et pouvait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme nÃ©cessaire Ã la protection de la morale, pour les mÃ©mes raisons que l'ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa correspondance . II s'ensuit que l'ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit du requÃ©rant Ã recevoir des informations peut se justifier en vertu de l'article 10, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Les deux griefs prÃ©sentÃ©s par le requÃ©rant sous l'angle de l'article 8 et de l'article 10 de la Convention sont donc manifestement mal fondÃ©s au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
4 . La Commission doit Ã prÃ©sent examiner les griefs du requÃ©rant concernant la procÃ©dure suivie par les autoritÃ©s . a . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission a tout d'abord examinÃ© l'allÃ©gation du requÃ©rant selon laquelle il se serait vu dÃ©nier le droit Ã la prÃ©somption d'innocence, garanti par l'article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Cependant, la Commission observe que cette disposition ne s'applique qu'9 une personne Â« accusÃ©e d'une infraction Â» . Il est clair, que dans l'affaire prÃ©sente, le requÃ©rant n'a fait l'objet d'aucune poursuite pÃ©nale, et les mesures administratives prises ne peuvent en aucune faÃ§on Ãªtre assimilÃ©es Ã des poursuites pÃ©nales . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention, et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e en vertu de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . b . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil n'ont pas fait l'objet d'une dÃ©cision d'un tribunal, comme l'exige l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, la Commission observe que le droit civil en question Ã©tait seulement le titre du requÃ©rant Ã recevoir les revues saisies par les services postaux . Sur cette question, le requÃ©rant a bel et bien obtenu une dÃ©cision du tribunal d'arrondissement de Westminster, qui est Ã l'Ã©vidence un tribunal, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . Le tribunal en est arrivÃ© Ã la conclusion que le requÃ©rant n'avait aucun titre Ã recevoir l'envoi en question, et a ainsi statuÃ© sur les droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil du requÃ©rant, conformÃ©ment Ã la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e de la Convention, qui ne prÃ©voit que le droit d'accÃ©der Ã un tribunal et d'Ãªtre entendu par lui . La Commission en conclut que le grief prÃ©citÃ© du requÃ©rant est manifestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . 5 . Le requÃ©rant s'est finalement plaint, sous l'angle de l'article 13 de la Convention, de n'avoir pas disposÃ© d'un recours effectif permettant d'assurer que toute restriction des droits garantis par la Convention Ã©tait conforme aux dispositions de celle-ci . L'article 13 de la Convention dispose que toute personne dont les droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la IprÃ©sentel Convention ont Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s, a droit Ã l'octroi d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale, alors mÃ©me que la violation aurait Ã©tÃ© commise par des personnes agissant dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions officielles . Comme la Cour l'a dÃ©clarÃ© dans l'affaire Klass et autres contre la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne (arrÃªt du 6 septembre 1978, paragraphe 64), Â« l'article 13 doit Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ© comme garantissant un Â« recours effectif devant une instance nationale Â» Ã toute personne prÃ©tendant que les droits et libertÃ©s que lui reconnait la Convention ont Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s rr . Le requÃ©rant a droit, en vertu de l'article 13, Ã ce que le fond de ses griefs au regard des articles 8 et 10, c'est-Ã -dire la lÃ©galitÃ© et la nÃ©cessitÃ© d e
la saisie des publications pornographiques, soit examinÃ© par une instance nationale . Il est vrai qu'aucun recours immÃ©diat n'Ã©tait Ã la disposition du requÃ©rant Ã propos de la dÃ©cision des services postaux, l'article 29 de la loi de 1969 sur les services postaux prÃ©voyant en effet l'immunitÃ© des services postaux contre toute action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts . Toutefois, dans le cas du requÃ©rant, les services postaux ont envoyÃ© les publications en cause au parquet, qui les a Ã son tour transmises 9 la police . Le requÃ©rant avait donc la possibilitÃ© de porter plainte contre la police, ce qu'il a effectivement lait, tout d'abord devant le tribunal d'instance par une procÃ©dure sommaire, conformÃ©ment Ã la loi de 1897 sur la propriÃ©tÃ© de la police, puis en engageant une action en restitution devant le tribunal d'arrondissement de W . Ce dernier tribunal, tout en dÃ©niant au requÃ©rant un droit de propriÃ©tÃ© sur les publications saisies, a examinÃ© la question de la lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©cision des services postaux . La Commission considÃ©re donc que le requÃ©rant a disposÃ© d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que ce grief est Ã©galement manifestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARELA REOUETEIRRECEVABLE .
APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7464/7 6
Justine KARRER et al . v/AUSTRI A Justine KARRER et autres c/AUTRICH E
REPORT adopted by the Commission on 4 May 1979 in purusuance of Article 30 of the Convention (friendly settlement ) RAPPORT Ã©tabli par la Commission en application de l'article 30 de la Convention IRÃ©glement amiable) le 4 mai 197 9
Artic% 6 paragraph 1, of the Convention : Length of civil proceedings . Artic% 28 (b) of the Convention : Friendly settlement. Artic% 1 of the First protoco/ : Legislation on the protection of tenants .
Artic% 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : DurÃ©e d'une procÃ©dure civile . Artic% 28, litt. b, de /e Convention : RÃ©g/ement amiable . A rtic% 1 du Protoco%additionne/ : LÃ©gislation surla protection des locataires .
INTRODUCTION I franÃ§ais : voir p. 49) This Report relates to Application no . 7464/76 lodged against the Republic of Austria by Mrs Justine KARRER, Dipl .-Ing . Silvia FUCHS and Mrs Felizitas KODRNJA on 29 April 1975 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . On 5 December 1978, the European Commission of Human Rights declared one part of the application admissible and rejected the remainder . It then proceeded to carry out its tasks under Article 28 of the Convention which provides that : "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petitio n
_42_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/10/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page