106 / 264
GAZETTE
MAY-JUNE
1.
A, B, C and D
v.
the United Kingdom
(Nos. 6840/74,
6871/75, 6998/75 and 7099/75)
The hearing will deal with various problems arising
under the Convention in connection with the applicants'
indefinite detention as mental patients.
2.
X
v.
the United Kingdom
(No. 7141/75)
The case concerns the right of a prisoner to marry
(Art. 12 of the Convention).
3.
Professor Deutsch
v.
the Federal Republic of Germany
The hearing will relate to the applicant's complaint
that he was wrongfully arrested and detained and refused
compensation (Art. 5 of the Convention).
4.
YandZv. Switzerland
(Nos. 7289/75 and 7349/76)
The case concerns a prohibition of entry pronounced
by Swiss authorities against the first applicant with effect
for both Switzerland and Liechtenstein and the alleged
repercussions of this prohibition on the applicants' family
life (Art. 8 of the Convention).
B.
Examination of admitted applications
The Commission also continued its examination of a
number of admitted applications.
I. Reference to the European Court of Human Rights
The Commission, having adopted its Reports at its
previous session, decided to bring the following cases
before the Court:
1.
X
v.
the United Kingdom
(no. 5856/72)
Corcerning corporal punishment in the Isle of Man.
2.
Dr Konig v. the Federal Republic of Germany
Concerning the length of administrative court
proceedings.
II.
Reports adopted
The Commission adopted Reports in the following
cases:
1.
Klass and others
v.
the Federal Republic of Germany
This case concerns an Act of 1968 permitting under
certain circumstances the clandestine control of cor-
respondence and telecommunications (Arts. 8, 6 and 13
of the Convention). The Commission adopted its Report
under Art. 31.
2.
Neubecker
v.
the Federal Republic of Germany
The applicant complained of the Court decision by
which he was refused reimbursement of the costs of his
defence when criminal proceedings against him were dis-
continued. He invoked Art. 6(1) and (2) of the Conven-
tion (fair trial and presumption of innocence). A friendly
settlement under Art. 28 (b) has now been reached and
the Commission's Report under Art. 30 of the Conven-
tion will be published shortly.
III.
Continued examination of other admissible applica-
tions
1. Hilton v. the United Kingdom
The applicant complains of ill-treatment in prison
(Art. 3 of the Convention). The Commission decided to
hear the parties' oral conclusions on the evidence ob-
tained by its Delegates.
82
2.
Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc
v.
the Federal Republic
of Germany
On 2 March 1977 the Commission held a hearing of
the parties on the merits of these applications. The appli-
cants complain that they had to pay the costs of in-
terpretation in criminal proceedings. A separate press
release has been issued.
3.
X
v.
the Netherlands
(No. 6301/73)
The applicant complains of his detention as a mental
patient (Art. 5 (l)(e) and (4) of the Convention). The
Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties on
the merits of the application.
4.
Times Newspaper Ltd.
v.
the United Kingdom
The applicants complain of an injunction preventing
them from publishing an article dealing with thalidomide
children. The Commission considered its draft Report
under Art. 31 of the Convention.
5.
Briiggemann and Scheuten v. the Federal Republic of
Germany
The applicants submit that the criminal law concern-
ing the interruption of pregnancy violates their right to
respect for their private life (Art. 8 of the Convention).
The Commission decided to hear at its May session the
parties' oral submissions on the merits of the case.
6.
Haase v. the Federal Republic of Germany
On 3 March 1977 the Commission held a hearing of
the parties on the merits of this application which relates
to the length of criminal proceedings against the appli-
cant and, in this context, to the length of his detention on
remand. A separate press release has been issued.
Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights
Freedom from torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
Freedom from slavery, servitude and forced
labour
Right of liberty and security of person
Right to a fair trial by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law
Right to respect for family life, home, cor-
respondence
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression
Article 3:
Article 4:
Article 5:
Article 6:
Article 8:
Article 9:
Article 10:
COURT OF JUSTICE OF
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Judgments
Case 71/76—
Thieffry
v
Conseil de l'Ordre des Avocats á
la Cour
de Paris (The Paris Bar Council) — 28 April
1977 —
Freedom of establishment
After the Reyners
case in 1974,
Thieffry
raises the
problem of the exercise of the profession of Advocate.
The facts are as follows: Mr. Thieffry, a Belgian
national, holds a doctorate in Belgian law. In 1974 he
obtained recognition of the diploma for his doctorate in
Belgian law as a qualification equivalent to a licentiate's