II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES10 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION

113. The applicants also complained under Article 10 that their disenfranchisement breached their right to express their opinion, and that they had been discriminated against as convicted prisoners, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. The relevant Articles read as follows:

Article 10

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression...

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.”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

114. The Government appear to have contested the applicability of Article 10 in the present case. In any event, they argued, with reference to the Hirst (no. 2) [GC] judgment, that there were no separate issues in the present case under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention.

115. The second applicant submitted that he did not insist on pursuing his complaints under the aforementioned Articles any further.

116. Having regard to the parties’ submissions and to its conclusion under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in paragraph

112above, the Court considers that this part of the application is admissible and that no separate issue arises under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see Hirst (no. 2) [GC], cited above, §§ 87 and 89).

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

117. Thesecond applicantalso complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to receive information had been violated by a public official’s refusal to give him certain documents. He complained under Article 6 of the Convention that there were various irregularities in the court proceedings brought by him.

118. Having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court finds that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention provisions. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 714