European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> RASSEMBLEMENT JURASSIEN v SWITZERLAND - 8191/78 [1979] ECHR 7 (10 October 1979)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1979/7.html
Cite as: [1979] ECHR 7, (1979) 17 DR 93

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

APPLICATION No 8191/78

RASSEMBLEMENT JURASSIEN v SWITZERLAND - 8191/78 [1979] ECHR 7 (10 October 1979)

DECISION of 10 October 1979 on the admissibility of the application

Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Convention :

a) The right to freedom of peacefull assembly relates to both private and public meetings.

b) A requirement for authorisation of meetings in public does not, as such, constitute an interference with the right to freedom of assembly.

Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention .

a) Is a measure, based on a constitutional principle emerging from jurisprudence "provided for by law" ? (Question not pursued).

b) The national authorities have an important margin of appreciation in order to determine the "necessary" measures when faced with a danger which forces them to decide within a short time limit.

c) In order to assess whether a measure was "necessary", the question whether it was proportionate to the circumstances is examined.

(TRANSLATION)

THE FACTS

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows :

The applicants are two non profit-making associations : the Rassemblement jurassien ^[1] and the Unite jurassienne^[2] Both were represented before the Commission by Mr Andre Manuel, a lawyer practising in Lausanne.

The application concerns the ban on all political meetings within the municipal boundaries of Moutier, ordered on two occasions by the Executive Council (government) of Canton Berne in April 1977 and is directed against the Federal Court |udgment of 21 September 1977 rejecting two public law appeals filed by the applicant associations.

The application arises out of the dispute in Canton Berne between a part of the French-speaking population living in the districts of the Jura where there is a German-speaking majority In the referendum of 23 June 1974, the principle of setting-up a new canton, Jura, was approved. In a second referendum, on 16 March 1975, the three southern Jura districts (La Neuve-ville, Courtelary and Moutier) voted by a majority to remain in Canton Berne.

In March 1977, at the proposal of the Canton Berne Executive Council's Delegation for Jura Affairs, the Berne Grand Council decided to delete the reference to the People of the Jura from the first two articles of the canton constitution.

In protest against this, both the Rassemblement and Unite organised a demonstration which was to take place at the Hotel de la Gare in Moutier on 2 April 1977

On 31 March the Moutier municipal authorities reminded the two associations of the ban it had imposed in June 1976 on any demonstration in a public thoroughfare.

On 1 April a (pro-Berne) anti-separatist group called a meeting of its members and sympathisers in another Moutier restaurant for 2 April

In a decision of 1 April 1977, in order to avoid clashes between the various factions, the Executive Council of Canton Berne banned all political meetings within the municipal boundaries of Moutier on 2 and 3 April The reasons given for this decision, taken under Article 39 2 of the Berne Constitution ^[3], were as follows : "It is currently prohibited in the municipality of Moutier to demonstrate in any public thoroughfare Having regard to the appeals to take part in large numbers in demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, compliance with this ban cannot be guaranteed".

On 2 April 1972, the municipal council of Moutier, while deploring the failure to inform it of the Executive Council's decision, requested that the measures taken to ban at meetings "be rescinded as soon as possible". A demonstration nevertheless did take place at Moutier on 2 April.

Claiming that they had been unable, owing to the ban, to hold the meeting which had been announced, the applicant associations called another at the same place for 16 April. The pro-Berne movements did likewise.

On 12 April the Moutier municipal council agreed that the applicant associations should not hold their meeting as planned, laying down conditions which the associations accepted.

In a decision of 13 April, the Executive Council of Canton Berne, referring to the "present tension which has arisen in a climate of provocation", in order to "avoid clashes whose consequences would be unforeseeable" decided to ban all political meetings within the municipal boundaries of Moutier from 15 to 17 April Provision was also made for sanctions in the event of infringement of this ban.

It appears from the judgment of the Federal Court that the planned demonstration nevertheless took place and clashes occurred between the police and demonstrators.

The applicant associations made two public law appeals to the Federal Court, one against the decision of 1 April 1977 by the Executive Council of Canton Berne, and the other against the decision of 13 April. Joinder of the two appeals was ordered on 12 May 1977.

In their appeals, the applicant associations maintained that the decisions complained of violated freedom of assembly, of opinion and of expression, as guaranteed by the Berne Constitution (Articles 77 and 79), by the Federal Constitution and by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as well as the principle of equality of treatment.

These appeals were rejected by the Federal Court in its judgment of 21 September 1977

The Court pointed out that the freedoms referred to were guaranteed in both canton and federal law. Although emphasising that Article 39.2 of the Berne Constitution authorised the government to take emergency measures to prevent disorder, the Court held that this provision "does not grant the Executive Council more restricted powers than those which it may employ under the general police clause". Even without any specific constitutional or statutory foundation, this clause confers upon the executive authority the right to take essential measures to preserve public order. It thus amounts to a "constitutional principle which properly restricts the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution"

Considering that there was indisputably a state of tension in the South Jura districts and that, in particular, the district of Moutier was where by far the most disturbances had occurred, the Court held that the Executive Council had quite legitimately availed itself of its general police powers.

As for whether the ban on all meetings had violated the principle of proportionality, although pointing out that the municipal authority seemed to have considered that the risks of disturbances were not such that all demonstrations needed to be banned, the Court found that, in view of the circumstances, the Executive Council had not exceeded its discretionary powers in deciding that a ban on counter-demonstrations alone would not suffice to prevent disorder or breach of the peace.

As for the alleged violation of equality of treatment, the Court held that there had been no violation, pointing out that the decisions complained of had banned all meetings, whether of autonomists or pro-Berne factions.

The applicant associations allege violation of Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention, putting forward two series of complaints.

Referring to the Federal Court judgment and arguing that the Court had primarily justified the Canton Berne government's decisions on grounds of the application of the "general police clause", they maintain firstly that the absence of any statutory or constitutional foundation, in other words the absence of a "law" in the broadest possible sense, prohibits states from departing from Articles 10 and 11 without any legal basis in substantive law

They further contest the merits of the alleged decisions. They maintain that the decisions taken by the Moutier municipal council were sufficient to maintain the peace and public order and that the ban on all political meetings of any kind within the municipal boundaries violated the principle of proportionality Similarly, they maintain, that in ordering this ban "under pressure from pro-Berne organisations", the Canton Berne authorities took discriminatory measures, since the measure affected only "the organisations of the Jura French-speaking minority in the southern Jura districts, as a national minority"

PROCEDURE

Acting in accordance with Rule 40.1 of the Rules of procedure, the Rapporteur decided on 12 May 1978 to obtain information from the Swiss Government concerning the course of events in the case

The Swiss Government replied to this request for information in a letter of 21 June 1978. The applicants in turn submitted their comments in a memorial dated 25 August 1978

On 4 December 1978, the Commission proceeded to consider the admissibility of the application. In pursuance of Rule 42.2.b of the Rules of Procedure, it decided to bring this application to the notice of the Swiss Government The latter was invited to submit its observations on the admissibility of the application in so far as it related to the decisions against the two associations to ban two meetings, and the compatibility of those decision with, in particular, Article 11 of the Convention. These observations, dated 1 March 1979, were passed to the applicants' counsel, who replied on 3 May 1979.

On 26 July the Commission invited the parties to submit further observations orally at a hearing on the admissibility and the merits of the application

This hearing took place on 10 October 1979.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The arguments put forward by the parties, both in writing and orally, may be summarised as follows.

A The Government

According to the Government it is possible to deduce from all the circumstances of the case that the ban imposed by the Executive Council of Canton Berne on all political meetings within the municipal boundaries of Moutier on 2 and 16 April 1977 does not constitute a violation of Article 11 or of any other provision of the Convention.

The Government attach very special importance to the precise elucidation of the facts, in order to bring out the exact nature of the Jura problem, a complex matter which, in addition to its linguistic element, is also explained by historical, religious, cultural, political and economic factors.

I As to the facts of the case

The Government briefly summarise the main stages in the Jura question, especially since 1950 It stresses that, following the constitutional revision of 1 March 1970 in Canton Berne, four plebiscites were organised in the Jura between June 1974 and September 1975. Following these plebiscites, only the three northern districts were able to form the new canton of the Jura, which was set up on 24 September 1978

As regards the circumstances of the present case, the Government stress two events, which combined to increase tension, in a climate which was already tense, in the six French-speaking districts of the Jura and in particular in the town of Moutier which, following the third plebiscite in September 1975, had decided to remain in Canton Berne The Government wish to emphasise that, in the Jura question, the municipality of Moutier has always been a trouble-spot, where latent tension was particularly high as the relevant events approached.

The first of these events was the approval by the Jura electorate on 20 March 1977 of the new canton's constitution. Article 138 of which provides that "The republic and canton of the Jura may embrace any part of the Jura directly concerned by ballot of 23 June 1974, provided such part shall have duly become separate in accordance with federal law and the law of the canton concerned"

The second event was the decision by the Berne Grand Council of 28 March 1977 to delete the reference to the "people of the Jura" in the canton constitution

It was following these two events that the first of the two banned demonstrations was called by the applicant associations by means of an appeal to all the six districts of the Jura, the tone of which, according to the Government, reflected the passionate atmosphere which reigned in the Jura at the time Thus provoked, as they thought, the pro-Berne movements organised a reply and called a counter-demonstration by their sympathisers tor the same day as the separatist demonstration, i e. 2 April 1977. In view of the "foreseeable magnitude" of this demonstration, the Moutier municipal council asked the Prefect for uniformed police reinforcements on 30 March and repeated this request on 2 April, with suggestions as to their deployment.

The Government stress the contradictory attitude of the Moutier municipal council, itself very divided, as it emerges from these decisions.

Relying on Article 39 2 of the Berne constitution, the Executive Council of Canton Berne, in view of the situation, then took the decision to ban the demonstration A similar decision was taken concerning the demonstration planned for 16 April 1977, bearing in mind that tension continued to mount, as may be seen from the report drawn up by the District Prefect in connection with the events of 16 April 1977, which mentions a number of incidents, including the discovery of explosive devices. The Government agree with the Federal Court that "the Executive Council had serious reason to fear that the already tense situation might grow worse, with a risk of violent clashes between uncontrolled elements taking fear that the security forces might not be able to prevent clashes if the planned meetings and the counter-demonstrations announced were all authorised".

The Government consider that the comparisons made by the applicants' counsel between the relevant events and the demonstrations in Tavannes on 29 January 1977 and in Moutier on 14 May 1977 are without foundation.

With regard to the Tavannes demonstration, whose purpose was cultural, the circumstances in which it occurred were completely different from those prevailing in Moutier The differences lay in the place of the demonstration, the time when it occurred, the number of participants, the attitude of the authorities, etc.. There was no threat of disorder or breach of the peace and there was no ban on demonstrations in public thoroughfares

As regards the Moutier demonstration on 14 May 1977 the Government do not contest that it was conducted without incident. It adds that, as it took place less than a month after the last controversial event and in the same town, this difference may at first seem paradoxical. However, it points out, several most important events occurred between 16 April and 14 May.

These included a tripartite meeting on 25 April 1977 and the establishment of a round-table conference to lay down arrangements for the demonstrations

The Jura autonomist movements decided to call a further demonstration on 14 May 1977 and said they were prepared to attend any further meeting to agree arrangements for it, provided it could be held in accordance with constitutional freedoms. In a press release issued at the close of the round-table conference on 13 May, it was stated moreover that the pro-Berne movement still agreed not to hold a counter-demonstration on 14 May.

All these facts, according to the Government, clearly show that the situation leading up to 14 May was fundamentally different from that obtaining prior to 2 and 16 April 1977.

II As to the compatibility of the prohibition measures with the Convention

The Government's argument is that the prohibition measures decided upon by the Berne Executive Council were provided for by law, legitimate and necessary.

a. The measures complained of were in accordance with the law. At municipal level they were founded on the Moutier municipal authority's decision of June 1976 to ban all demonstrations in public thoroughfares and, at canton level, on Article 39 of the Berne Constitution, under which both the bans complained of were ordered. Subsidiarily, the prohibition measures are based on the unwritten Swiss constitutional principle of the "general police clause". This clause confers upon the executive authority the right to take the measures necessary to restore public order where it has been disturbed or to preserve it from a direct and imminent threat of serious danger

Referring to the judgment of the Court in the Sunday Times case, according to which the word "law" covers not only statute but also unwritten law", the Government considers that on these grounds also the bans were provided for by law (judgment of 26 April 1979, para. 47)

b. The measures were "necessary in a democratic society"

The Government maintain that the temporary bans ordered in a situation of indisputable tension, within the very limited municipal boundaries of Moutier, were necessary, indeed indispensable measures in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The canton authority obliged to ban all demonstrations within municipal boundaries of Moutier because compliance with the municipal ban could not be guaranteed, owing to appeals from the antagonists to take part in large numbers in the demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, and in order to prevent the clashes which were bound to occur because the planned demonstration could not be held in a closed place.

The Government also maintain that it is not possible in assessing the facts of the case to ignore the democratic process arising out of the plebiscites which led to the admission of the new Jura Canton to the Confederation Accordingly, the Berne Executive Council had not only the right but the duty to enforce compliance with decisions democratically arrived at. This democratic element was factor in the decisions taken by the canton authorities.

The principle of proportionality was not violated in the case in point, since the ban applied only within the municipal boundaries of Moutier. It was accordingly proportionate to the intended purpose and appropriate to the imperative social requirement of preventing serious clashes. The public interest in the freedom of peaceful assembly was bound temporarily to take second place to the equally legitimate public interest in harmonious community life among citizens in a democratic society.

In this context, the Swiss Government also referred to the principle of "confederal peace", as expressed in two provisions of the Federal Constitution: Article 2, which confers upon the Confederation the task of maintaining tranquillity and order, and Article 5 which guarantees the cantons their territory as well as the rights and power conferred by the people on the authorities.

Referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Handyside and Sunday Times judgments), the Government point out that the national authorities enjoy a measure of discretion in determining whether a measure intended to "prevent disorder" and to maintain "public safety" is "necessary" In the case at issue, the authorities did not abuse this discretionary power.

The primary concern of the authorities, both municipal and cantonal, was to prevent clashes. Taking all the factors into account, particularly the limited scope of the measures complained of, both in time and space, the Government hold that the application is inadmissible for being manifestly "ill-founded", since the measures complained of complied with the Convention, in particular Article 11 2.

B The applicants

According to the applicants, the "complexity" of the Jura Question emphasised by the Swiss Government, is no justification for the adoption of the exceptional measures where public safety is concerned. They reassert that the Jura problem is a linguistic and ethnic one, due to the immigration of German-speakers from Berne into the South Jura districts, and that the religious argument used by the Berne Government to divide the population of the Jura is of no relevance.

I. As to the facts of the case

It was maintained that in general the attitude adopted by the Moutier Municipal Council on the approach of the demonstrations announced for 2 and 16 April 1977, far from being contradictory as the Government claims, was dictated primarily by a concern to avoid any breach of the peace.

As regards the district prefect's report mentioned by the Government, the applicants emphasise that the Prefect is the representative of the Berne Government and that his declarations must be assessed in the light of his legal and factual position as such

As regards the incidents which occurred on 2 April, the applicants maintain that they had absolutely nothing to do with the demonstration. As for the incidents of 16 April, they occurred outside the limits of the Place de la Gare in Moutier and outside of the times of the planned demonstrations.

The applicants further argue that no consideration was ever given to the possibility of intervention by the authorities against the counter-demonstrations called by the anti-separatists when the two demonstrations of 2 and 16 April were announced, and that it would have been more logical for the authorities to do so before banning all demonstrations.

Contrary to the Government's assertion, the authorities possessed - according to the applicants sufficient police forces to limit, control and hence authorise each of the demonstrations. The demonstration ban was accordingly contrary to the principle of proportionality

In support of their claim that the bans of 2 and 16 April were political, since there were no serious grounds for believing that the situation might rise to violent clashes, the applicants draw a comparison with two demonstrations which took place before and after the event at issue

The first, held in Tavannes on 29 January, went off without incident On that occasion, a detachment of grenadiers had received orders to take up a position between the opposing groups as a preventive measure. Accordingly, the Executive Council could have taken similar measures on the occasion of the demonstrations at issue to those taken on 29 January in connection with the Tavannes demonstration, the political nature of which would not have given rise to discussion, since the situation there was scarcely different from that in Moutier.

The second demonstration referred to took place on 14 May 1977 in complete calm and without any police being present, which - according to the applicants- proved that where no obstacles are placed in the way of freedom of assembly, autonomous demonstrations can take place without incident

II. As to the compatibility of the prohibition measures with the Convention

According to the applicants, far from being mere "restrictions" on the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly, the measures complained of amount to a completely unnecessary ban, as shown by the two demonstrations of 29 January and 14 May 1977.

a. As to the legibility of the measures

According to the applicants, the measures taken were completely without foundation in either federal law or Berne Canton law. As regards the general police clause, its application always depends on the principle of proportionality However, they point out, it was possible to maintain order otherwise than by means of a general ban. By banning all political meetings, the Executive Council accordingly violated the principle of proportionality

b. As to the necessity of the measures

The applicants argue that the Executive Council abused its discretionary powers in deciding that a ban on the counter-demonstrations alone was not sufficient to prevent disorder and breach of the peace

In fact the planned demonstrations were to be peaceful. Consequently, it is difficult to see how any overflow on to the public highway - tolerated moreover by the municipality itself - could have led to disturbances which could not be controlled, especially as the Executive Council had a substantial police force at its disposal to maintain order.

Accordingly, in the case at issue, there was violation of Article 11, m that the municipal authority, which had first -hand knowledge of the situation, was "short circuited" on 2 and 16 April by the canton authority, which wished to make a show of force and subsequently, realising that it had made the situation worse, made the demonstration of 14 May materially possible and hence demonstrated that there was no need to ban the demonstrations of 2 and 16 April

As regards the Government's argument relating to the democratic process in the Jura Question, the applicants point out that the application does not seem to contest the validity of these plebiscites.

They argue that the right to strive for the peaceful modification of the legal system, by the legal means of legislative or constitutional reform, cannot be contested ; on the contrary, it is inherent in the idea of "democratic society".

This notion does not refer so much to the process of arriving at the national will, nor even the purely legislative process. It refers to the style of group life and the type of human community. Article 11.2 refers to "democratic society" and not simply to "democracy" or "democratic state". The Swiss Government, according to the applicants, degrades the notion of democracy by lowering it to the level of intangible respect for a democratic procedure.

The applicants maintain, lastly, that Article 5 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees the cantons their territory is not an intangible "Grundnorm". Proof of this is the organisation of the vote of 24 September 1978 as a result of which the canton of Jura was set up

Furthermore, the autonomist campaign (or reunification of the Jura respects the law and contemplates no other means than constitutional reform, in terms of federal law and canton law

THE LAW

The applicants complain of measures imposed on them on two occasions, prohibiting them from organising political meetings in enclosed places. They argue that they have, as a result, suffered violation of their rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of peaceful assembly, as guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They further maintain that the measures taken were discriminatory, which is prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention.

The Commission points out at the outset that it will confine its examination of the application to the aspects concerning Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention. The allegation concerning Article 10 may be considered as subsidiary in relation to that concerning the right of peaceful assembly. The problem of freedom of expression cannot in this case be separated from that of freedom of assembly, as guaranteed by Article 11, and it is the latter freedom which is primarily involved in this issue. In the circumstances of the present case, it is accordingly not necessary to consider Article 10.

Article 11 of the Convention is worded as follows :

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the protection of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state."

The Commission wishes to state at the outset that the right of peaceful assembly stated in this article is a fundamental right in a democratic society and, like the right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society (Handyside case, judgment of 7 December 1976, series A, para 49). As such this right covers both private meetings and meetings in public thoroughfares. Where the latter are concerned, their subjection to an authorisation procedure does not normally encroach upon the essence of the right Such a procedure is in keeping with the requirements of Article 11.1, if only in order that the authorities may be in a position to ensure the peaceful nature of a meeting, and accordingly does not as such constitute interference with the exercise of the right.

4 The applicants complain of two measures imposing a complete ban on demonstrations These measures indisputably constitute interference by the public authorities with the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 11. The Commission must accordingly examine whether such interference complies with the criteria set out in paragraph 2 of the Article.

5. The applicants maintain, firstly, that the interference was not in keeping with the stipulations of Article 11.2, because the bans had no legal basis in statutory law and because the above-mentioned provision requires that a restriction on the exercise of guaranteed right must firstly be "prescribed by law". They refer in this connection to the judgment of the Swiss Federal Court and, in particular to the reasons stated by (hat court, justifying the bans primarily by reference to the "general police clause".

The Government maintain that the measures complained of were "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 11 2, and conformed to both municipal and canton rules Where the canton is concerned, these measures were based on Article 39 of the Berne Constitution. The Government argue lastly, that even in the absence of canton law, the measures concerned would h3ve been compatible with the Convention, because they were founded on the unwritten Swiss constitutional principle of the "general police clause".

6 The Commission does not consider it necessary to pronounce in the circumstances of the present case on the question of whether a measure taken by virtue of a principle established by case law, even if uncontested, such as the "general police clause", may be regarded as a measure "prescribed by law"

As may be clearly seen from the judgment of the Federal Court, the measures complained of were based, from the legal point of view, firstly on Article 39 2 of the Berne Constitution.

There is therefore no doubt that they were "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 11 2 of the Convention.

7. The applicants further contest the justification of the bans in relation to Article 11 They argue in substance that the complete ban on demonstrations was not necessary, that other means were open to the public authorities to enable them to avail themselves of the right of peaceful assembly and that the measures in question violated the principle of proportionality.

The Government maintain that the tension prevailing at the time in the town of Moutier led the Canton authorities to ban the demonstrations announced for, the purpose of preventing disorder and breach of the peace, that the right which the applicants could legitimately claim had in fact to take second place to the public interests, that furthermore the measures, being limited in time and space, did not infringe the principle of proportionality. In short, the authorities did not abuse the margin of appreciation which the Convention allows them

8 The Commission notes that the measures complained of were taken in pursuit of legitimate aims in relation to Article 11.2 of the Convention ¦ public safety in a democratic society and the prevention of disorder. The Commission accepts that, leading up to the announced demonstrations, there was a tense situation in Moutier A serious danger of disorder existed, which the measures decided upon by the Canton authority were intended to prevent

9. It is incumbent upon the Commission however to determine whether public safety and the prevention of disorder made the measures complained of necessary.

The Commission points out that in examining whether these measures were necessary, it does not intend to substitute its own judgment for that of the competent internal authorities. Its function is to assess, from the point of view of Article 11, the decisions which those authorities took in the exercise of their discretionary power.

Indeed, it is primarily up to the national authorities to judge whether there is really an imperative social requirement, as implied by the concept of "necessity" (Handyside case, cited judgment, para. 48). In this connection, the Convention allows the contracting states a margin of appreciation in applying the measures restricting the exercise of a guaranteed right such as the right of peaceful assembly However, this margin is fairly broad once the authority, as in this case, is confronted with a foreseeable danger affecting public safety and order and must decide, often at short notice, what means to employ to prevent it

10 The explanations given by the respondent Government have convinced the Commission, as just pointed out (para 8 above), that there was considerable tension on the eve of the demonstrations. In view of the number of sympathisers expected, serious clashes and disorder could be foreseen, as is proved by the subsequent discovery of explosive devices.

11 The applicants further maintain that the means employed by the Canton authority, viz the complete bans on demonstrations, were disproportionate to their purpose. Admittedly, the principle of proportionality is one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing whether a measure of interference is "necessary".

The Commission notes, however, that in this case the bans in each case concerned specific demonstrations and were in addition based on the situation obtaining at the time Above all, however, the ban concerned only the territory of the Municipality of Moutier and its duration, indicated in advance, was limited in time. Proof of this is that a demonstration did take place, without any opposition from the authorities, less than one month after the planned date of the second demonstration.

It is important to point out in this connection that the demonstration of 14 May was proceeded on the previous day by a round-table conference to which the parties concerned had been invited to settle arrangements for the demonstrations.

The Commission accordingly considers that the principle of proportionality was not infringed in this case. It is furthermore not convinced that less stringent measures than those taken would have been suited to the situation.

12. Bearing in mind the margin of appreciation allowed to the authorities in this case and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Commission considers that the measures complained of were compatible with the requirements of Article 11.2.

13. The applicants alleged, lastly, that the ban on demonstrations discriminated against them and so violated Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 11.

The Commission finds no appearance of discriminatory treatment in this case On the contrary, it appears from the judgment of the Federal Court that the ban applied without distinction to the demonstrations organised by the applicants and by the anti-separatists movements.

Accordingly, the applicants were not treated differently from anyone else.

14. From the foregoing it appears that the application as a whole is without foundation and must be rejected in pursuance of Article 27.2 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE:

Note 1   The principal aim of the Rassemblement is "to free the people of the Jura from domination by Berne" It also defends "the general interests of the Jura and in particular the French character of the six romands French Swiss districts" ("districts romands") (Article 1 of its constitution)     [Back]

Note 2   The purpose of Unite 15 to secure "the independence of the whole Jura territory which has remained under Berne's guardianship" (Article 1 of its constitution)     [Back]

Note 3   Article 392 "Zur Abwendung von dungender Getahr kann er [der Regierungsrat] die vorlaufigen milnanschen Sicherhensmassregeln ergreifen oder die noiigen Gebole und Verboie mil Strafandrohung erlassen ; er soil aber dem Grossen Rai sogleich davon Kenntms geben und seme Enischeidung uber die weiteren Vorkehren gewarngen." In order to ward off iminent danger, it [the Executive Council] may temporarily call upon the armed forces issue orders and prohibitions subject to penalties However, it shall immediately give notice of such measures to the Grand Council, which shall take subsequent measures     [Back]