AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25405/94
by Alois SCHÖPFER
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 September 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 11 August 1994 by
Alois Schöpfer against Switzerland and registered on 11 October 1994
under file No. 25405/94;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
20 February 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 30 April 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1953, is a lawyer
practising in Lucerne, Switzerland.
Particular circumstances of the case
The applicant was acting as counsel for S. who was remanded in
custody in the District Prison of Hochdorf in the Canton of Lucerne on
suspicion of having committed various financial offences.
On 6 November 1992 S.'s wife informed the applicant that the
District Registrars of the Hochdorf District Office had urged her to
find another lawyer for her husband if the latter wanted to be released
from detention.
In view thereof and of other alleged occurrences the applicant
held a press conference in his office in Lucerne on 9 November 1992.
On 10 November 1992 the newspaper "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten"
(LNN) printed the following article on p. 25:
Former member of parliament of the Christian Popular Party (CVP) demands investigation against the Hochdorf District Office. "I shall no longer let myself be fooled by these gentlemen" The former CVP member of parliament levels serious charges against the Hochdorf District Office. "I've had enough", curses (the applicant), "of being fooled by the gentlemen of the Hochdorf District Office. I have no other means left than to go to the press." The former CVP member of parliament was prompted to take the unusual step of approaching the public during pending proceedings on account of a case entrusted to him as a lawyer in mid-October. At that time his client had already been remanded in custody for a month at Hochdorf District Prison. Detained without a warrant of arrest The 20 year old father of a daughter of one and a half years was arrested on 18 August together with his brother on account of stealing a car radio and clothes; he was released after having admitted the offences. When on 15 September he wanted to inquire at the Lucerne Cantonal Police about his brother's situation, he was again immediately arrested. "When I inquired at the Hochdorf District Office about the warrant of arrest", (the applicant) remembers, "I was told that the warrant had been issued orally"; (the applicant) regards this as a clear breach of the cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure which states in Section 82: "The arrest is undertaken by the police duly authorised by a written warrant of arrest." When faced with this reproach, the Hochdorf District Officer H.B. remains buttoned up: "With me nobody is arrested without a written warrant of arrest. I cannot say more while the proceedings are pending." On the other hand, (the applicant) no longer intends to remain silent; he has been asked by the accused's wife to represent him: "His wife came to me because the officially appointed lawyer had failed to contact his client even though he had already been remanded in custody during six weeks." (The applicant) immediately contacted the officially appointed counsel who then withdrew from the case. However, the Hochdorf District Office did not want (the applicant) as new counsel and refused his request on 29 October on the ground that there were no reasons to disengage the previous lawyer. He was, however, free privately to represent his client. (The applicant) as a ground for detention? (The applicant) finally had enough when the accused's wife last Friday informed him that the two District Registrars Th.B. and B.B. had advised her not to continue collaboration with him. "They told me", the wife confirms to the LNN, "that my husband would not be released from detention as long as (the applicant) was his defence lawyer." Th.B. will have nothing to do with that: "That's ridiculous. I never said anything like that. B.B. can confirm that. He was present when I spoke with the wife." (The applicant) is not satisfied by that: "I demand that the District Officer and the District Registrars immediately step down and that a neutral Commission from another Canton carefully examine the matter." Ehemaliger CVP-Grossrat verlangt Untersuchung gegen Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf. "Ich lasse mich von diesen Herren nicht länger für dumm verkaufen" Der ehemalige CVP-Grossrat erhebt schwere Vorwürfe gegen das Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf. "Ich habe es satt", wettert (der Beschwerdeführer), "mich von den Herren vom Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf für dumm verkaufen zu lassen. Deshalb bleibt mir nur noch der Weg über die Presse." Bewogen zu dem ungewöhnlichen Schritt, während eines laufenden Verfahrens an die Öffentlichkeit zu gelangen, hat den ehemaligen CVP-Grossrat ein Fall, mit dem er als Anwalt Mitte Oktober betraut wurde. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sass sein Klient bereits seit einem Monat im Hochdorfer Untersuchungsgefängnis. Ohne Haftbefehl festgenommen Der 20jährige Vater einer anderthalbjährigen Tochter war am 18. August zusammen mit seinem Bruder wegen Diebstahls von Autoradios und Kleidern verhaftet und nach einem Geständnis wieder freigelassen worden. Als er sich am 15. September auf der Kantonspolizei Luzern nach dem Befinden seines Bruders erkundigen wollte, wurde er unverzüglich wieder festgenommen. "Als ich auf dem Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf nach dem Haftbefehl fragte, wurde mir mitgeteilt, dieser sei ihm mündlich eröffnet worden", erinnert sich (der Beschwerdeführer), der das Vorgehen der Polizei als eine klare Verletzung der kantonalen Strafprozessordnung betrachtet, die im Paragraph 82 vorschreibt: "Die Verhaftung wird von der Polizei vollzogen, die sich durch einen schriftlichen Haftbefehl auszuweisen hat." Auf diesen Vorwurf angesprochen, gibt sich Hochdorfs Amtsstatthalter H.B. zugeknöpft: "Bei mir wird niemand ohne schriftlichen Haftbefehl festgenommen. Mehr kann ich zu einem laufenden Verfahren nicht sagen." Nicht länger schweigen will dagegen (der Beschwerdeführer), der von der Frau des Angeschuldigten gebeten wurde, ihren Mann zu verteidigen: "Die Frau kam zu mir, weil der amtliche Verteidiger noch keinen Kontakt mit seinem Klienten aufgenommen hatte, obwohl er seit sechs Wochen in Untersuchungshaft sass." (Der Beschwerdeführer) setzte sich umgehend mit dem amtlichen Verteidiger in Verbindung, der ihm den Fall abtrat. Das Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf wollte dagegen (den Beschwerdeführer) nicht als neuen amtlichen Verteidiger und lehnte sein Gesuch am 29. Oktober mit der Begründung ab, es bestände keine Veranlassung, den bisherigen Rechtsanwalt von seinem Amt zu entbinden. Es stünde ihm jedoch frei, den Klienten privat zu verteidigen. (Der Beschwerdeführer) als Haftgrund? Der Kragen platzte (dem Beschwerdeführer), als ihm die Frau des Angeklagten am letzten Freitag mitteilte, die beiden Amtsschreiber Th.B. und B.B. hätten ihr von einer weiteren Zusammenarbeit mit ihm abgeraten. "Sie erklärten mir", bestätigt die Frau gegenüber der LNN, "dass mein Mann nicht aus der Haft entlassen werde, solange (der Beschwerdeführer) sein Verteidiger sei." Davon will Th.B. allerdings nichts wissen: "Das ist doch lächerlich. So etwas habe ich nie gesagt. Das kann B.B. bestätigen. Er war dabei, als ich mit der Frau gesprochen habe." (Der Beschwerdeführer) will den Vorfall nicht auf sich beruhen lassen: "Ich verlange, dass unverzüglich der Amtsstatthalter und die Schreiber in Ausstand treten und eine neutrale ausserkantonale Kommission die Angelegenheit unter die Lupe nimmt." Inserted into this text was the further article: "REPROACHES It is not the first time that substantial charges are levelled against the Hochdorf District Office. Already in connection with the conviction of the Debt Execution Officer H.S. of Rothenburg investigations were undertaken against District Officer H.B. He was convicted by the Lucerne District Court and sentenced to a fine of 400 SFr on account of a breach of official secrets. Although the Court of Appeal also found that objectively he had committed the offence, H.B. was acquitted." "VORWÜRFE Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass gegen das Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf massive Vorwürfe erhoben werden. Schon im Zusammenhang mit der Verurteilung des Rothenburger Betreibungsbeamten H.S. wurde gegen Amtsstatthalter H.B. ermittelt. Er wurde vom Amtsgericht Luzern wegen Verletzung des Amtsgeheimnisses zu einer Busse von 400 Franken verurteilt. Obwohl auch das Obergericht zum Schluss kam, der objektive Tatbestand sei erfüllt, wurde H.B. freigesprochen." Two photographs were included, one with the Hochdorf District Office, the other depicting District Officer H.B. and accompanied by the text: "with me nobody is detained without a written warrant of arrest" ("bei mir wird niemand ohne schriftlichen Haftbefehl festgehalten"). Another newspaper, the Luzerner Zeitung, also ran on 10 November 1992 an article on the press conference with the headline "Young man detained without warrant of arrest? Lucerne lawyer accuses the Hochdorf District Office of breaching the law" ("Junger Mann ohne Haftbefehl verhaftet? Luzerner Anwalt wirft Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf Rechtsverletzungen vor"). On 10 November 1992 the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) of the Canton of Lucerne wrote a reply according to which the accused person concerned had been arrested in accordance with the law, and the applicant had failed to file an appeal against the refusal to appoint him as official defence counsel. This reply was published in the press on 11 November 1992. On 13 November 1992 the Luzerner Zeitung summarised a press communique issued by the applicant in reply to the Public Prosecutor's statement. According to the applicant, S.'s detention was in breach of inter alia Convention rights. The applicant also cited the letter of another lawyer St. according to which "the situation in Hochdorf is far from satisfactory ... It is a catastrophe that the organs of justice know about the circumstances in Hochdorf and also covertly discuss them" ("die Zustände in Hochdorf (sind) alles andere als erfreulich ... Katastrophal ist ja auch, dass man bei der Justiz die Verhältnisse kennt und hinter vorgehaltener Hand auch darüber diskutiert"). According to an article in the Luzerner Zeitung of 19 November 1992 the Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsbehörde) of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne had written to the applicant, asking him for explanations; the applicant had replied inter alia by stating that he had acted lawfully and in the interests of his client. Meanwhile, the applicant filed a request for S.'s release from detention on remand. On 16 November 1992 the Hochdorf District Officer dismissed the request. The applicant filed an appeal which the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed on 30 November 1992. The Court of Appeal noted, however, that S., after his arrest, had incorrectly been brought before the District Registrar instead of the District Officer who alone qualified as a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. For this reason, the Court of Appeal ordered the decision to be brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office as the District Officer's supervisory authority. On 21 December 1992 the Supervisory Board of the Bar instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. On 15 March 1993 the Lawyers' Supervisory Board imposed, with reference to Section 13 of the Statute of the Bar (Anwaltsgesetz; see below, Relevant domestic law) of the Canton of Lucerne a fine of 500 SFr on the applicant on account of professional misconduct (Verletzung von Berufs- und Standespflichten). In its decision the Supervisory Board found in particular that the applicant had failed first to raise the charges at issue before the Public Prosecutor's Office or the Court of Appeal. He had thus not demonstrated the discretion called for in pending proceedings; he had also demonstrated that in fact he wanted to obtain publicity. By not filing an appeal he had also implied that the appeal bodies in the Canton of Lucerne were not trustworthy. On the whole the applicant's conduct called in question the reputation of the judiciary in the Canton of Lucerne. The applicant's public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 21 April 1994. In its decision, the Court considered that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression was based on Section 12 of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne (see below, Relevant domestic law). It also considered that lawyers had substantial freedom (weitgehende Freiheit) to criticise the judiciary as long as the criticism was duly expressed in the procedural forms. On the other hand, lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the judiciary. When examining whether the interference occurred in the public interest, it had to be considered how clear the alleged breaches of the law were; whether pending proceedings could be influenced; whether there was the possibility of introducing legal remedies; and in what manner the charges were raised. The decision continues: "It is true that one of the complaints - the applicant having contested a possible practice of the District Office - was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne. Contrary to the applicant's submissions, the Supervisory Board considered this in the contested decision. Apart from these reasons charges raised in public were not well- founded; they could also have influenced pending proceedings. ... Furthermore the Supervisory Board reproached the applicant for having chosen the wrong tone in respect of a number of complaints at the press conference. This was also explained in detail. It further alleged that the applicant had not stated the truth when he said that he had no other means left than going to the press. Yet at that time he had not even attempted to obtain a reply by filing a regular remedy with the statutory appeal organs. He could have been expected to proceed in this manner, and subsequently he indeed proceeded along these lines. In respect of all these points of view the applicant does not reply with any convincing arguments ..." "Es trifft zwar zu, dass eine der entsprechenden Rügen, mit welcher der Beschwerdeführer eine möglicherweise gängige Praxis des Amtsstatthalteramts angefochten hatte, später vom Obergericht des Kantons Luzern geschützt wurde. Entgegen dem Vorbringen des Beschwerdeführers hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dies im angefochtenen Entscheid jedoch berücksichtigt. Abgesehen davon erwiesen sich die öffentlich erhobenen Vorwürfe, die im übrigen geeignet waren, ein hängiges Verfahren zu beeinflussen, nicht als berechtigt. ... Weiter hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dem Beschwerdeführer angelastet, dass er sich an der Presseorientierung bei mehreren seiner Formulierungen im Ton vergriffen habe. Sie hat dies im einzelnen auch begründet. Sie hat dem Beschwerdeführer ferner insofern Wahrheitswidrigkeit vorgeworfen, als er die Anrufung der Presse dieser gegenüber als letzten Weg bezeichnet hatte, obwohl er im damaligen Zeitpunkt noch nicht einmal versucht hatte, sich auf dem ordentlichen Weg bei den gesetzlichen Rechtsmittelinstanzen Gehör zu verschaffen. Dieser Weg, den er nachträglich ja auch beschritten hat, war ihm ohne weiteres zumutbar. Gegen alle diese Gesichtspunkte bringt der Beschwerdeführer keine überzeugenden Argumente vor." The Court found that the measure had occurred in the public interest and that the sanction was proportionate in that it was at the lower end of the scale of fines. Relevant domestic law According to Section 12 para. 1 of the Statute of the Bar (Anwaltsgesetz) of the Canton of Lucerne, the Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsbehörde) may impose disciplinary sanctions on lawyers in cases of a breach of professional ethics. Section 13 provides that the lawyer concerned may be sanctioned with a fine of up to 5,000 SFr or with suspension from his professional activities. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, with reference to the Convention organs' case-law, that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him breaches his right under Article 10 of the Convention to freedom of information. He submits that he merely informed the press that no written warrant of arrest had been issued; and that the Hochdorf District Office had put S.'s wife under pressure. The decision of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne of 30 November 1992 and the letter of the lawyer St. both confirm that his allegations were largely correct. The applicant submits that he remained objective in his statements. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 11 August 1994 and registered on 11 October 1994. On 29 November 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Government's written observations were submitted on 20 February 1996. The applicant replied on 30 April 1996. THE LAW The applicant complains that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him breaches his right under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention to freedom of information. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention states: "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 Government accept that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. However, it is contended that the application is manifestly ill- founded. Thus, the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression complied with the conditions under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. Thus, the legal basis of the measure was Article 12 of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne. Moreover, the interference served the purpose of "the protection of ... the rights of others" and of "maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. The Government also submit that the measure was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. Reference is made to the Federal Court's case-law according to which a public interest may justify informing the public of a violation of human rights. However, regard must thereby be had to the degree of intensity of the alleged violation, the potential influence on pending proceedings, the possibility of employing other remedies, and the manner in which the complaints are presented. The Government contend that in the present case both the moment and the manner of presenting the complaints were badly chosen by the applicant. Thus, his statement was resentful and aggressive and, with one exception, wrong. It could also have interfered with pending proceedings. Moreover, the applicant had not introduced any judicial remedies before giving his press conference. Finally, the fine imposed, 500 SFr, was moderate. The applicant contests the Government's submissions. He contends that he was prevented from telling journalists what they could write, although they are entitled to the freedom of information. The applicant alleges systematic violations of the Convention by the Lucerne authorities. In the present case, the person concerned had been in custody for six weeks without seeing a judicial officer; he had also not been represented by a lawyer. When the applicant eventually became his lawyer, the wife of the detainee was told that he would remain in custody as long as he was represented by the applicant. The applicant contends that in his press conference he made it clear that such systematic breaches of human rights could no longer be tolerated. There was no other way of proceeding. A remedy would have been pointless. The Commission finds that this complaint raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits. This aspect of the case cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority, DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case. M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE Secretary President to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy