In
the case of Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. the Netherlands,
The
European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article
43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the
relevant provisions of Rules of Court A,
as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr S.K. Martens,
Mrs E. Palm,
Sir John Freeland,
Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
and
also of Mr H. Petzold,
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 August 1994 and 27 January 1995,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of
Human Rights ("the Commission") on 9 December 1993, within
the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article
47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an
application (no. 16616/90) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an
association under Netherlands law, Vereniging Weekblad Bluf!, on 4
May 1988.
The
Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,
art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the Netherlands recognised
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The
object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the
facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its
obligations under Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3
(d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant association stated that it
wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who
would represent it (Rule 30). The lawyer was given leave by the
President to use the Dutch language (Rule 27 para. 3).
The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr S.K. Martens,
the elected judge of Netherlands nationality (Article 43 of the
Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court
(Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 24 January 1994, in the presence of the
Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven
members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr C. Russo, Mr A. Spielmann, Mrs E.
Palm, Sir John Freeland, Mr D. Gotchev and Mr K. Jungwiert (Article
43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting
through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Netherlands
Government ("the Government"), the applicant’s
lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the
proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in
consequence, the Registrar received the applicant association’s
memorial on 17 May 1994 and the Government’s memorial on 26
May. On 3 August the Secretary to the Commission informed the
Registrar that the Delegate would submit his observations at the
hearing.
On 4 July 1994 the Commission had produced the file on the
proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the
President’s instructions.
In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took
place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24
August 1994. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There
appeared before the Court:
-
for the Government
Mr K. de Vey Mestdagh, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mrs M.L.S.H. Groothuisje, Ministry of Justice,
Mrs M.J.T.M. Vijgen, Ministry of Justice, Advisers;
-
for the Commission
Mr H. Danelius, Delegate;
-
for the applicant association
Mrs E. Prakken, advocaat, Counsel,
Mr R.E. de Winter, Assistant Lecturer,
University of Maastricht, Adviser.
The
Court heard addresses by Mr de Vey Mestdagh, Mr Danelius, Mrs
Prakken and Mr de Winter.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant is an association based in Amsterdam and at the
material time it published a weekly called Bluf! for a left-wing
readership. Since then the periodical has ceased publication.
In the spring of 1987 the editorial staff of Bluf! came into
possession of a quarterly report by the internal security service
(Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst - "the BVD"). Dated 1981
and marked "Confidential", it was designed mainly to
inform BVD staff and other officials who carried out work for the
BVD about the organisation’s activities. It showed that at
that time the BVD was interested in, among other groups, the
Communist Party of the Netherlands and the anti-nuclear movement. It
also mentioned the Arab League’s plan to open an office in The
Hague and gave information about the Polish, Czechoslovakian and
Romanian security services’ activities in the Netherlands.
The
editor of Bluf! proposed to publish the report with a commentary as
a supplement to issue no. 267 of the journal on 29 April 1987.
A. The seizure
On 29 April 1987, before the journal was published or sent out to
subscribers, the director of the BVD informed the public prosecutor
(Officier van Justitie) of the plan to publish the report and
pointed out that its dissemination was likely to infringe Article
98a paras. 1 and 3 and Article 98c para. 1 of the Criminal Code
(Wetboek van Strafrecht - see paragraph 20 below). In his letter he
stated:
"Although, in my opinion, the various
contributions taken separately do not (or do not any longer) contain
any State secrets, they do - taken together and read in conjunction
- amount to information whose confidentiality is necessary in the
interests of the State or its allies. This is because the
juxtaposition of the facts gives an overview, in the various sectors
of interest, of the information available to the security service
and of the BVD’s activities and method of operation."
1. The preliminary judicial investigation
On the same day a preliminary judicial investigation (gerechtelijk
vooronderzoek) in respect of a person or persons unknown was
commenced on an application by the public prosecutor. The
investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) of the Amsterdam Regional
Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) ordered the applicant association’s
premises to be searched and had the entire print run of issue no.
267 of Bluf!, including the supplement, seized. The police
apparently did not take away the offset plates remaining on the
printing presses. Three people were arrested but released the
following day.
During the night of 29 April 1987, unknown to the authorities, the
staff of the applicant association managed to reprint the issue that
had been seized. Some 2,500 copies were sold in the streets of
Amsterdam the next day, which was the Queen’s birthday and a
national holiday. The authorities decided not to put a stop to this
so as not to cause any public disorder.
On 6 May 1987 the investigating judge closed the investigation on
the ground that he had no basis on which to continue it. In a letter
of 2 June 1987 the public prosecutor informed the applicant
association that proceedings against the three people arrested
during the seizure were being dropped, as the evidence against two
of them was insufficient and the third had played a minimal role.
2. The complaints by the applicant association
In the meantime, on 1 May 1987, the applicant association had
complained of the seizure to the Review Division of the Amsterdam
Regional Court under Article 552a of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Wetboek van Strafvordering - see paragraph 21 below), seeking the
return of the confiscated copies, their supplements and the wrappers
so that they could be sent out to subscribers in time.
This
application was dismissed on the same day in so far as it related to
the copies of the journal and supplement. The court considered that,
in view of their content, it was not "highly unlikely"
that in the criminal proceedings an order would be made for the
periodical’s withdrawal from circulation (onttrekking aan het
verkeer). The court did, however, order the return of an insert
entitled "A Contribution to the Jewish History Museum" and
the wrappers.
In a judgment of 17 November 1987 (Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (NJ)
1988, 394) the Supreme Court dismissed appeals on points of law that
the applicant association and the public prosecutor lodged against
that decision. In respect of the applicant association’s
ground of appeal based on a violation of Article 7 of the
Constitution (see paragraph 19 below), the court held that the right
secured in that provision was limited by the phrase "subject to
each person’s liability under the law" and that the
seizure of the printed matter to be distributed was among the
measures capable of safeguarding the interests which Articles 98 and
98a of the Criminal Code were intended to protect.
In the interval, on 12 May 1987, the applicant association had
lodged a second complaint with the Review Division of the Amsterdam
Regional Court. Relying on Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention,
it challenged the lawfulness (rechtmatigheid) of the seizure. In the
alternative, it sought the return of the confiscated items on the
ground that as the judicial investigation had been terminated, the
measure had ceased to be justified.
On
11 January 1988 the court dismissed the complaint. It ruled that it
was identical with the one of 1 May 1987 and that no new factor
justified returning the property. Relying on the statement from the
public prosecutor’s office to the effect that it would make an
application to have the journal withdrawn from circulation as soon
as the Supreme Court had given judgment on the appeal on points of
law against the decision of 1 May, the court held that it was still
not to be excluded that such a measure might be taken. Consequently,
it rejected the applicant association’s submission based on
the decision not to prosecute (see paragraph 12 above).
B. The withdrawal from circulation
On 25 March 1988 the public prosecutor applied to the Amsterdam
Regional Court for an order that issue no. 267 of Bluf! should be
withdrawn from circulation.
On 21 June 1988 the court allowed the application on the basis of
Articles 36b and 36c of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 20 below).
It held that as the seized items were designed to commit the offence
set out in Article 98 and/or Article 98a para. 1 taken together with
para. 3 of the Criminal Code, the unsupervised possession of them
was contrary to the law and the public interest. Moreover, the
measure was justified under Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention
on the grounds of maintaining "national security".
In a judgment of 18 September 1989 (NJ 1990, 94) the Supreme Court
dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant association.
It
held that the court below had clearly established that an offence
covered either by Article 98a para. 1 taken together with para. 3 or
by Article 98 had been committed and that it did not have to choose
between the provisions indicated. Articles 36b para. 1 (4) and 36c
para. 1 (5) were applicable even though neither the applicant
association nor any other person had had to answer for their actions
in the criminal proceedings. The reprinting and distribution of the
issue in dispute after the seizure was no bar either, since the fact
of making information public, covered by Article 98, did not
necessarily have the consequence that secrecy should not be
preserved. Articles 98 and 98a contained statutory provisions
envisaged in Article 7 of the Constitution and Article 10 (art. 10)
of the Convention; since the seizure and withdrawal from circulation
were designed to safeguard the interests protected by Articles 98
and 98a, they fell within the permitted restrictions on the right to
freedom of expression. In referring to national security, the court
below had clearly shown that what was in issue in the instant case
was information whose secrecy was necessary in the interests of the
State. Lastly, the seizure and withdrawal from circulation could not
be equated with imposing a condition of "prior authorisation",
even though the public could not acquaint itself with the opinions
and ideas contained in the printed matter.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. The Constitution
Article 7 para. 1 of the Constitution provides:
"No one shall need prior authorisation in order to
express his opinions or ideas through the press, subject to each
person’s liability under the law."
B. The Criminal Code
At the material time the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code
read as follows:
Article 36b para. 1
"An order for the withdrawal of seized items from
circulation may be made
(1) in a judgment in which a person is convicted of a
criminal offence and a sentence is imposed;
...
(4) in a separate judicial order made on an application
by the public prosecutor."
Article 36c
"Any of the following items are liable to be
withdrawn from circulation:
...
(5) those made or intended for the commission of the
offence; in so far as they are of such a nature that the
unsupervised possession of them is contrary to the law or the public
interest."
Article 98
"1. Anyone who
deliberately communicates or puts at the disposal of a person or
organisation not authorised to have knowledge of it any information
whose secrecy is necessary in the interests of the State or its
allies, or any item from which it is possible to extract such
information, shall, if he knows or should reasonably suspect that
the information is of this kind, be liable to
imprisonment for a period not exceeding six years or a fine of the
fifth category.
2. A person shall be liable to the same penalty if he
deliberately communicates, or makes available to a person or
organisation not authorised to have knowledge of it, any information
from a prohibited locality and relating to the security of the State
or of its allies, or any item from which it is possible to extract
such information, if he knows or should reasonably suspect that the
information is of this kind."
Article 98a
"1. Any person who deliberately divulges
information of the kind referred to in Article 98 ... shall, if he
knows or should reasonably suspect that the information is of this
kind, be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding fifteen
years or a fine of the fifth category.
2. ...
3. The acts carried out in preparation of an offence as
defined in the foregoing paragraphs shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a period not exceeding six years or a fine of the
fifth category."
Article 98c
"1. The following shall be liable to imprisonment
for a period not exceeding six years or a fine of the fifth
category:
(1) anyone who, without having been so authorised,
takes or keeps in his possession any information referred to in
Article 98;
..."
C. The Code of Criminal Procedure
The main provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned in
this case are the following:
Article 94
"Any items which may serve to establish the truth
or whose confiscation or withdrawal from circulation can be ordered
shall be liable to be seized."
Article 104 para. 1
"During the preliminary judicial investigation the
investigating judge shall be empowered to seize any items liable to
confiscation."
Article 552a para. 1
"The parties concerned shall be able by way of
application to make a complaint in respect of seizures, the use made
of confiscated items or delay in ordering the return [of such items]
..."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! applied to the Commission on 4 May 1988.
Relying on Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, it complained of
the seizure and the subsequent withdrawal from circulation of issue
no. 267 of its periodical Bluf!. It also complained of a breach of
Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (a) (art. 6-1, art. 6-2, art. 6-3-a) of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in that as the
judicial investigation had been closed, it had not had an
opportunity to defend itself against the charge underlying the
foregoing two measures and had been deprived of its property without
due process.
On 29 March 1993 the Commission declared the application (no.
16616/90) admissible as to the first complaint and inadmissible as
to the remainder. In its report of 9 September 1993 (Article 31)
(art. 31), it expressed the opinion by sixteen votes to two that
there had been a breach of Article 10 (art. 10). The full text of
the Commission’s opinion and of the dissenting opinion
contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE COURT
In their memorial the Government expressed the opinion that
"the requirements of Article 10 para. 2 (art.
10-2) of the Convention [had been] met in [the] case, so that there
[was] no question of there having been any contravention of Article
10 (art. 10) of the Convention".
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 (art. 10) OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant association maintained that the seizure and
subsequent withdrawal from circulation of issue no. 267 of Bluf! had
infringed its right to freedom of expression. It relied on Article
10 (art. 10) of the Convention, which provides:
"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 (art. 10)
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 disputed this submission, while the Commission
accepted it as regards the withdrawal from circulation.
A. Whether there were "interferences"
The Court notes that the impugned measures amounted to
interferences by a public authority in the applicant association’s
exercise of its freedom to impart information and ideas. None of
those appearing before it contested this.
B. Justification for the interferences
Such interferences infringe Article 10 (art. 10) unless they were
"prescribed by law", pursued a legitimate aim under
Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2) and were "necessary in a
democratic society" to achieve it.
1. "Prescribed by law"
The Government considered that the basis for the seizure was
provided by Articles 94 and 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(see paragraph 21 above) and for the withdrawal from circulation by
Articles 36b para. 1 (4) and 36c (5) of the Criminal Code (see
paragraph 20 above). Issue no. 267 of Bluf! imparted information
whose secrecy was necessary in the interests of the State, an
offence under Articles 98 and 98a of the Criminal Code (see
paragraph 20 above).
In the applicant association’s submission, the seizure of
printed matter such as the weekly in question and its withdrawal
from circulation only conformed to the fundamental principle of the
rule of law contained in the concept "prescribed by law"
if they were ordered in the context of criminal proceedings. Given
the importance of the right to freedom of expression, only such
proceedings afforded sufficient safeguards. In the instant case,
however, that condition had not been satisfied, so that the public
prosecutor’s office obtained the order for seizure and
withdrawal without having had to prove in adversarial proceedings
that the information in issue had to be kept secret.
Furthermore,
it said, the proceedings had contravened Netherlands law, among
other reasons because the guilt of the party concerned had never
been established and Article 7 of the Constitution prohibited
preventive measures where a publication was concerned. Lastly, the
seizure and withdrawal were not penalties within the meaning of
paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2) but measures of expediency.
The Commission considered it sufficient that the impugned measures
were based on Articles 98a and 98c of the Criminal Code.
The Court cannot accept the argument that Article 10 (art. 10)
precludes ordering the seizure and withdrawal from circulation of
printed matter other than in criminal proceedings. National
authorities must be able to take such measures solely in order to
prevent punishable disclosure of a secret without taking criminal
proceedings against the party concerned, provided that national law
affords that party sufficient procedural safeguards. Netherlands law
satisfies that condition by allowing the party concerned to complain
both of a seizure and of a withdrawal from circulation (see
paragraph 21 above) - opportunities of which the applicant
association availed itself.
As
to the applicant association’s second allegation, the Court
reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities,
notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among
other authorities, the Chorherr v. Austria judgment of 25 August
1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 36, para. 25). In the instant case the
Supreme Court considered and rejected the applicant association’s
submissions on two occasions (see paragraphs 14 and 18 above). The
European Court sees no reason to suppose that Netherlands law was
not correctly applied.
In
conclusion, the interferences were "prescribed by law".
2. "Legitimate aim"
The applicant association conceded that at the time of the seizure
the ban on publishing the quarterly report might in theory have
served the purpose of "national security". It asserted, on
the other hand, that as soon as the reprint of issue no. 267 had
been distributed, the same was no longer true as the material was no
longer secret.
In the Government’s submission, persons and groups
representing a threat to national security could have discovered, by
reading the report, whether and to what extent the BVD was aware of
their subversive activities. The way in which the information had
been presented could also have given them an insight into the secret
services’ methods and activities. They had thus had a chance
of using this information to the detriment of national security.
The Court recognises that the proper functioning of a democratic
society based on the rule of law may call for institutions like the
BVD which, in order to be effective, must operate in secret and be
afforded the necessary protection. In this way a State may protect
itself against the activities of individuals and groups attempting
to undermine the basic values of a democratic society.
In view of the particular circumstances of the case and the actual
terms of the decisions of the relevant courts, the interferences
were unquestionably designed to protect national security, a
legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2).
3. "Necessary in a democratic society"
The applicant association submitted that the seizure and withdrawal
to prevent distribution of issue no. 267 of Bluf! were not necessary
in a democratic society for the protection of national security, as
the six-year-old report had been given the lowest confidentiality
rating when it appeared in 1981. Furthermore, the measures had
become pointless after the reprint of the issue had been
distributed, since the confidentiality of the information had been
breached. In refraining from intervening, the State had recognised
that its confidentiality was not of the first importance. In any
event, account had to be taken of the applicant association’s
manifest intention of contributing, by publishing the material, to
the public debate then under way in the Netherlands on the BVD’s
activities.
The Government maintained that as the seizure complied with the
requirements of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2), the same was true of
its prolongation and of the subsequent withdrawal from circulation,
since these were designed to prevent the report from falling into
the hands of unauthorised persons. The information should have
remained confidential. It was for the State to decide whether it was
necessary to impose and preserve such confidentiality. The State was
also in the best position to assess the use that might be made of
the information by subversive elements to the detriment of national
security. Against that background, it should be allowed a wide
margin of appreciation.
The
Netherlands authorities had refrained from preventing distribution
of the reprint solely for fear of causing serious public disorder in
view of the vast crowds on the streets of Amsterdam on 30 April
1987, the Queen’s birthday. The withdrawal from circulation
remained in force after that date because the journal had been
distributed only locally and in limited quantities. The figure of
2,500 copies sold, advanced by the applicant association, was
exaggerated. Moreover, to hold that the measures were no longer
effective following distribution of the periodical would be
tantamount to accepting that "crime pays".
Lastly,
the instant case differed from the cases of Weber v. Switzerland
(judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 23, para. 51), The
Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (judgment of 26 November
1991, Series A no. 217, p. 30, para. 54) and Open Door and Dublin
Well Woman v. Ireland (judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no.
246-A, p. 31, para. 76). In this instance, unlike the situation in
the first of those cases, the Netherlands authorities had brought
proceedings to prevent publication; and, unlike the situation in the
other two cases, the information in the report could not be obtained
by other means.
In the light of these submissions, it must be ascertained whether
there were sufficient reasons under the Convention to justify the
seizure and withdrawal.
Because of the nature of the duties performed by the internal
security service, whose value is not disputed, the Court, like the
Commission, accepts that such an institution must enjoy a high
degree of protection where the disclosure of information about its
activities is concerned.
Nevertheless, it is open to question whether the information in the
report was sufficiently sensitive to justify preventing its
distribution. The document in question was six years old at the time
of the seizure. Further, it was of a fairly general nature, the head
of the security service having himself admitted that in 1987 the
various items of information, taken separately, were no longer State
secrets (see paragraph 9 above). Lastly, the report was marked
simply "Confidential", which represents a low degree of
secrecy. It was in fact a document intended for BVD staff and other
officials who carried out work for the BVD (see paragraph 8 above).
Like the Commission, the Court does not consider that it must
determine whether the seizure carried out on 29 April 1987, taken
alone, could be regarded as "necessary".
The withdrawal from circulation, on the other hand, must be
considered in the light of the events as a whole. After the
newspaper had been seized, the publishers reprinted a large number
of copies and sold them in the streets of Amsterdam, which were very
crowded (see paragraphs 11 and 38 above).
Consequently,
the information in question had already been widely distributed when
the journal was withdrawn from circulation. Admittedly, the figure
of 2,500 copies advanced by the applicant association was disputed
by the Government. Nevertheless, the Court sees no reason to doubt
that, at all events, a large number were sold and that the BVD’s
report was made widely known.
In this latter connection, the Court points out that it has already
held that it was unnecessary to prevent the disclosure of certain
information seeing that it had already been made public (see the
Weber judgment previously cited, pp. 22-23, para. 49) or had ceased
to be confidential (see the Observer and Guardian v. the United
Kingdom judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 33-35,
paras. 66-70, and the Sunday Times (no. 2) judgment previously
cited, pp. 30-31, paras. 52-56).
Admittedly, in the instant case the extent of publicity was
different. However, the information in question was made accessible
to a large number of people, who were able in their turn to
communicate it to others. Furthermore, the events were commented on
by the media. That being so, the protection of the information as a
State secret was no longer justified and the withdrawal of issue no.
267 of Bluf! no longer appeared necessary to achieve the legitimate
aim pursued. It would have been quite possible, however, to
prosecute the offenders.
In short, as the measure was not necessary in a democratic society,
there has been a breach of Article 10 (art. 10).
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) OF THE CONVENTION
Under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention,
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure
taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High
Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the
obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law
of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the
consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court
shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
The applicant association’s claim was solely for
reimbursement of the costs and expenses relating to the proceedings
in the national courts and thereafter before the Convention
institutions. Once the sums received in legal aid in the Netherlands
and before the Commission have been deducted, they amounted to
77,773 Netherlands guilders (NLG) plus NLG 13,052 in value-added tax
(VAT).
The Government pointed out that the applicant association had
received legal aid both in the national proceedings and before the
Convention institutions. They considered that only the expenses and
fees before those institutions could be taken into account and they
drew attention to the very large amounts sought.
The Delegate of the Commission expressed no view.
Having regard to its case-law and to the sum paid in legal aid, the
Court assesses the amount to be paid on an equitable basis for costs
and expenses at NLG 60,000 inclusive of VAT.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 10 (art. 10) of
the Convention;
2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant
association, within three months, 60,000 (sixty thousand)
Netherlands guilders for costs and expenses;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in
the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 9 February 1995.
Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
