AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14869/89
by Allan Patrick REEVE
against the Netherlands
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 8 June 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 March 1989 by
Allan Patrick REEVE against the Netherlands and registered on 5 April
1990 under file No. 14869/89;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British national, born in 1948, and at
present detained in The Hague, the Netherlands. Before the Commission
he is represented by Mr. H.G. Kersting, a lawyer practising in
Amsterdam.
The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
At fifteen years of age, the applicant apparently committed a
murder in the United Kingdom, for which he was convicted and placed in
Broadmoor Hospital for the criminally insane. Apparently in 1981 he
escaped and made his way to the Netherlands, where, in 1982, he was
arrested for the killing of a police officer. He was convicted of
this charge and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. During his
detention in the United Kingdom he obtained a Bachelor of Arts
degree. In the Netherlands he pursued his studies and obtained a
Master's degree in political science. At some time during his
detention in the Netherlands, the applicant apparently attempted an
escape from prison, together with several other prisoners.
On 24 October 1986, the applicant requested the director of
the prison to allow a filmmaker, Mr. S., to film interviews with the
applicant, for the purpose of making a documentary about his life and
about the general effects of long term imprisonment. The initial
request apparently suggested ten filming sessions of two hours each.
On 18 November 1986, the applicant requested the director of
the prison to allow a newspaper reporter, Mr. O., of "De Waarheid", to
interview him.
The director of the prison apparently refused permission for
both requests.
On 15 December 1986, the applicant complained to the prison's
Complaints Commission of the Supervisory Commission (Beklagcommissie
uit de Commissie van toezicht) against the refusal of the director to
give a decision in writing. Because of complications at the
Complaints Commission, the applicant had to ask the director of the
prison for a new decision and to file a new complaint with the
Complaints Commission.
On 30 June 1988, the Complaints Commission rejected the
applicant's complaint. Regarding the interview with the newspaper
journalist it held, inter alia, that the director's position was not
unreasonable or unfair, as he had agreed to consider an interview
under the rules of the Directive on contacts between individual
detainees and the press (Regeling contacten tussen individuele
gedetineerden en de pers; RCGP), and, furthermore, as the applicant
was free to invite the journalist as a regular visitor, even for
unsupervised visits. The Complaints Commission also considered that
these rules were for the legitimate purpose of maintaining prison
order, and that, therefore, the restrictions were in accordance with
paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention.
As regards the filming sessions, the Complaints Commission
upheld the reasons for refusal given by the director, to which it
added its own considerations. The director had based himself on the
RCGP and had given the following reasons:
a. the filming sessions would be too great a burden
on the prison, also in terms of security arrangements.
b. the public screening of the film could be painful
to the family of the applicant's victim;
c. such a film could damage relations between the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom;
d. the film could violate the character of the
applicant's deprivation of liberty.
The Complaints Commission again considered that the refusal of
permission was in accordance with Article 10 para. 2 of the
Convention.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Appeals
Commission of the Central Council of Criminal Law Application
(Beroepscommissie van de Centrale Raad van Strafrechtstoepassing). He
submitted, inter alia, that filming in prison had taken place on
numerous occasions before and that paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the
Convention only permitted restrictions of the exercise of the right to
freedom of expression, and not a total prohibition.
On 20 September 1988, the Appeals Commission rejected the
appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that, by refusing permission for him
to be interviewed on film and by a newspaper journalist, the prison
authorities violated his right to freedom of expression. He invokes
Article 10 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the refusal of the prison
authorities to allow a television team to make a documentary film on
the applicant and to allow an interview with a newspaper reporter. He
invokes Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the relevant parts of
which provide as follows:
"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...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibiities, may be subject to such
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,
... for the prevention of disorder or crime..."
The Commission is of the opinion that the refusal by the
prison authorities to allow an interview and the making of a
filmed documentary may be considered as an interference with the
applicant's right to impart information and ideas under Article 10
para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.
It remains to be examined whether this interference was
justified under para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of that provision.
The Commission notes that the contested measures were taken in
conformity with a prison order, which was based on the Prison Rules.
The Commission is satisfied that the interference was "prescribed by
law". The refusal to allow the interview and the documentary in this
case had the purpose of preventing disorder in prison, which falls
under the legitimate aim of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) "for the
prevention of disorder". In order to establish whether the measure
was "necessary in a democratic society," a balance must be struck
between the interests of society and the interference with the
applicant's right of freedom to impart information.
In respect of the interviews with the newspaper journalist,
the Commission notes that the applicant was free to invite the
journalist during normal visiting hours and that they would be allowed
to talk without supervision. Furthermore, the prison director had
agreed to consider a separate interview facility within the context of
the Prison Rules.
In respect of the filmed interviews, the Commission
acknowledges that the provision of general facilities for such
interviews would create an unreasonable administrative and security
burden for prison administrations.
In the light of these considerations, the Commission considers
that the requisite balance between the applicant's and the prison's
interests has sufficiently been taken into consideration. Therefore,
it can be said that the measures were necessary in a democratic
society for the prevention of disorder within the meaning of Article
10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy