X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

APPLICATIDN/REQUETE NÂ° 7525/76 X . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 3 March 1978 on the admissibility of the applicatio n DECISIQN du 3 mars 1978 sur la recevabilitA de la requÃªt e
Article 8 of the Convention : The effect of the repression of homosexuality on the private life of a homosexuel (Complaint declared admissible) . The repression of outrage to public morals or outrage to public decency do not seem to affect private life. Article 11 of the Convention : The repression of outrage to public morals or outrage to public decency do not affect in particular the freedom of association of homosexuals. Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention : Does any discrimination lie in the fact that firstly, male homosexuality but not female homosexuality (nor heterosexuality) is repressed and secondly male homosexuality is not repressed identically in all parts of the United Kingdom ? (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 25 of the Convention : Can the homosexual, who has never been convicted for that reason, but who states that he lives in fear in view of the existence of repressive laws and because he has been questioned by the police, be considered as "victim" within the meaning of Article 25? (Question not pursued) . Competence ratione materiae of the Commission : The fact that thÃ¨ Commission does not have the power to oblige a Government to end a violation of the Convention and to award compensation to the injured party is no reason, as such, to dismiss an application whose author claims that that is the aim he seeks .
Article 8 de la Convention : L'influence de la rÃ©pression de l'homosexualitÃ© sur la vie privÃ©e d'un homosexuel (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Il n'apparatt pas que la rÃ©pression des atteintes 9/a morale publique ou des outrages publics aux mceurs affectent la vie privÃ©e .
- 117 -
Article 11 de la Convention : La rÃ©pression des atteintes Ã la morale publique ou des outrages publics aux mceurs n'affecte pas particuliÃ©rement la libertÃ© d'association des homosexuels . Article 14 combinÃ© avec l'article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Y a-t-il discrimination dans le fait, d'une part que l'homosexualitÃ© masculine est rÃ©primÃ©e mais non l'homosexualitÃ© fÃ©minine (ni l'hÃ©tÃ©rosexualitÃ©) et, d'autre part, que l'homosexualitÃ© masculine n'est pas rÃ©primÃ©e de maniÃ¨re identique dans toutes les parties du Royaume-Uni? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable). Articfe 25 de la Convention : L'homosexue/ qui n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© de ce fait, mais qui dÃ©clare vivre dans la crainte vu l'existence de lois rÃ©pressives et parce qu'il a Ã©tÃ© entendu par la police peut-il Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme Â« victime Â» au sens de l'article 25 ? (Question non rÃ©sotue ) CompÃ©tence ratione materiae de la Commission : Le fait que la Commission n'a pas le pouvoir d'obliger un Gouvernement Ã faire cesser une violation de la Convention et d'accorder une indemnitÃ© au /Ã©sÃ© ne permet pas, par lui-mÃ©me, de rejeter une requÃªte dont l'auteur indique que tel est son but.
I franÃ§als : voir p . 732 1
THE FACTS
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant in his original application may be summarised as follows : The applicant, who was 30 years old as al the introduction of his application, is a shipping clerk resident in Belfast, Northern Ireland . He is represented by Mr Francis Keenan, solicitor and Mr Kevin Boyle, barrister-at-law, Belfast . The applicant stated that he had been consciously homosexual from the age of 14 years and that he had been aware since adolescence of severely disapproving social attitudes towards homosexual behaviour . He had also become aware of the fact that homosexual behaviour infringed the criminal law in Northern Ireland, since the age of legal consent for heterosexual relationships . From the onset of homosexual consciousness he had experienced tear, which was augmented by the lack of guidance available and caused him suffering and distress . His fear had increased through adulthood and was directly caused by the existence of offences against homosexual behaviour in the criminal law . As a result of the criminal law he had permanently suffered prejudice including psychological distress, and fear of harassment, blackmail, prosecution and resultant exposure . Relationships within his family had been affected by parental fears that his homosexual status might become known and lead to exposure and the destruction of normal parental arrangements has caused constant psychological upset and retarded his motivation to advance himself in life . He alleged that he had therefore suffered direct economic prejudice from "the criminalising of my status as a homosexual person" .
- 118 -
The applicant stated that he had also been involved in attempts to reform this aspect of the criminal law in Northern Ireland . He submitted copies of correspondence, pamphlets and other material showing steps taken, by various organisations in which he was involved, with a view to obtaining reform of the law . He stated that these efforts had not been successful and that membership of the groups involved had caused him considerable fear of prosecution under the law of criminal conspiracy . The applicant also alleged that in January 1976 he had been questioned by the police concerning homosexual relationships and informed that the criminal law was to be enforced, from which he had understood that a prosecution might follow . Diaries and papers had been taken from his residence and held by the police . The applicant complained in particular of the following offences in the criminal law of Northern Ireland : 1 . under SS 61 and 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 - the offences of buggery (maximum penalty life imprisonment) and attempted buggery ; 2 . under S 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 - the offence of gross indecency between males (maximum penalty two years' imprisonment) ; 3 . under the common law - attempts to commit the above offences (punishable with the same maximum penalties) and the offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency (penalty at the discretion of the court) . The applicant also referred to the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 under which, in England and Wales only, a homosexual act committed in private between consenting parties over twenty-one years of age does not constitute an offence . COMPLAINT S The applicant complained that, being homosexual, offences in the criminal law of Northern Ireland were enforceable against him by way of criminal prosecution . He also complained that the possibility of prosecution caused him fear and distress . He alleged the violation of Article 8 of the Convention in this respect . The applicant also complained of having been questioned by the police about his homosexual status, attitudes and behaviour in January 1976 and complained that the homosexual reform organisation of which he was a member had been subject to harassment by the police since then and that he personally had experienced fear and psychological upset because of such harassment . The applicant also complained that, being homosexual, he suffered unjustifiable discrimination on grounds of sex and residence in contravention of Article 14 of the Convention because offences in the criminal law of Norther n
- 119 -
Ireland were not part of the law in other regions of the United Kingdom and, therefore, if being homosexual he resided in such other regions, he would not suffer fear and distress of prosecution . The applicant sought the following relief : an examination by the Commission of his complaint to require the respondent Government to end the violations of the Convention and compensation for pain and sutfering . SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATIO N In support of his application the applicant submitted that he was a "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention in so tar as he suffered prejudice by reason of the fear of prosecution and in that : the penal laws had a chilling or restraining effect on the free expression of his sexuality ; he had suffered psychological injury and harm ; the prohibitions and legal restraints on his homosexual status caused social stigma and loss of self-esteem and respect ; the existence of serious criminal offences left him open to blackmail, intimidation and harassment ; finally he suftered a discriminatory status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, on grounds of residence and sex . He submitted that Article 8 of the Convention was violated in that as a homosexual he had suffered injurious infringements in respect of his private life . It was clear from the Commission's case-law that the right to respect for private life included respect for the right to privacy of the homosexual person . The applicant referred to a number of previous decisions of the Commission in support of this submission' . It was for the respondent Government to show that restrictions imposed by the criminal law of Northern Ireland on the rights guaranteed under Article 8, paragraph 1 were necessary in a democratic society, in addition to showing that they were necessary for the protection of morals or other purposes specified in Article 8, paragraph 2 . The Government was estopped from relying on Article 8, paragraph 2 to justify the infringement of the applicant's rights under Article 8, paragraph 1 since the restrictions in question were not part of the criminal law in other pans of the United Kingdom and therefore were not required in such other regions as being necessary in a democratic society for any purpose specified in Article 8, paragraph 2 . Article 14 of the Convention was violated in that restrictions were imposed through the criminal law of Northern Ireland on homosexual acts committed by males in circumstances where they would not constitute offences under the criminal law in other parts of the United Kingdom . The applicant was therefore a victim of discrimination on grounds of residence . The applicant also submitted that "the existence of the said offences on homosexual behaviour is discrimination against him on sexual grounds . "
' E .g . AVOlicetion No . 1 04 / 55, Yearbook 1, p . 718 .
- 120-
There was no domestic forum in which the applicant could plead violation of his rights under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention . Furthermore he and others had taken steps by petition and other constitutional means to have his rights respected . In this respect the applicant referred to copies of correspondence with Members of Parliament and other material relevant to steps taken by himself and others to obtain a reform of the relevant laws . He submitted that since the Convention could not be pleaded in the domestic law of Northern Ireland and all other domestic remedies had been exhausted, Article 26 of the Convention was no bar to the admissibility of the application .
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N The Commission examined the question of admissibility of the application on 10 December 1976 and decided in accordance with Rule 42, paragraph 2 Ibl of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of it to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility . The Government's observations were submitted on 22 February 1977 and the observations of the applicant in reply were submitted on 7 April 1977 . The Commission again considered the application on 18 May 1977 and decided to request the Government to submit further written observations on admissibility . The Government's supplementary observations on admissibility were submitted on 23 August 1977 . In submitting these observations the Government suggested that there would be little purpose in proceeding with the application until proposals for new legislation in Norihern Ireland concerning homosexuality had been published . It appeared that this legislation might meet the objectives of the application, and it seemed convenient if, after having had the opportunity to comment on them, the applicant were to indicate to the Commission whether their implementation would enable him to withdraw his application . Supplementary observations by the applicant were submitted on 22 September 1977 . The applicant also commented on the question of future procedure, indicating that he was not prepared now to withdrawn his application and that he wished to press on with it . On 28 November 1977 the applicant further stated that no date had been given as to when the proposal for legislative retorm was to be published or might be passed into law . Recent official pronouncements suggested that the undertaking to change the law might be abandoned or unduly delayed . The applicant therefore asked that his case be now considered .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S Initial observations of the respondent Governmen t The respondent Government gave details of relevant facts and laws . They set out SS 61 and 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and S 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 and explained the relevant offences . The maximum penalties prescribed were not to be understood as likely . The actual penalty would depend on the circumstances . The Sexual Offences Act 1967 ,
- 121 -
which applied only to England and Wales provided that buggery or acts of gross indecency in private between two consenting males aged 21 or more should not be offences . In Scotland the practice was not to prosecute for homosexual acts in private between consenting males over 21, although these were prohibited by law . The Government reserved their position as to the effect of the authorities on the common law offences of conspiracy mentioned in the application They did not appear central to the applicant's complaints . He could presumably not contend that if the legislative provisions in question were consistent with the Convention, the common law provisions were nevertheless contrary theret o It was not clear in which respects the applicant considered the Northern Irish provisions of which he complained to be contrary to the Convention . However in his application he had stated that the laws put pressures on him "to emigrate to other parts of the United Kingdom to which changes in the law have been extended" . It therefore seemed reasonable to assume that his complaints related to the provisions in question only to the extent that they applied to homosexual acts in private between consenting males aged 21 or ove r Legislation on homosexuality in Northern Ireland was under consideration and the views of the people in Northern Ireland, including those of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, were being obtained . IThe Commission, in their Report published on 19 July 1977, had recommended that the law in Northern Ireland be brought into line with that in England and Wales . The Government submitted a copy of this Report and stated that the Secretary of State hoped, later in 1977, to publish proposals in the form of draft legislation to give effect to this recommendationl . ' On the question of admissibility the Government first reserved their position on the issue whether the applicant should, on the basis of the evidence he had produced, be regarded as a victim within the meaning of Article 25 . The Government recognised that the provisions complained of, in so far as they might affect the applicant, could in principle constitute an interference with his private life within the meaning of Article 8, paragraph 1 . However in each of the cases reterred to by the applicant (No . 104/55 etc .l the Commission had declared complaints of the same nature inadmissible on the ground that creation of homosexual offences was justified under Article 8, paragraph 2 . The present complaint under Article 8 was likewise inadmissible . The applicant had emphasised the requirement in Article 8, paragraph 2 that restrictions must be "necessary" . In this respect the Government referred to passages in the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Handyside case, to the effect that Article 10, paragraph 2 left a margin of appreciation to the State" . The weight which the word "necessary" carried in the context of Article 8, paragraph 2 was similar to that which it carried in Article 10, paragraph 2 . The legal provisions complained of were within the margin of appreciation under Article 8, paragraph 2 . ' The submissions in brackete are contained in the Government's supplementery observations and summarised here for convenience .
" Judgment of 7 December 1976, series A, No . 24, para . 48 .
- 122-
The applicant had also referred to the absence of similar offences in other parts of the United Kingdom . However similar arguments had been made in Handyside and the Court had emphasised lat para . 48) that the laws on moral requirements would vary from place to place . It had dealt with these arguments in paragraph 54 of the Judgment, to which the Government referred . The Court stated inter alia that in no case did Article 10, paragraph 2 compel the authorities to impose "restrictions" or "penalties" in the field of freedom of expression . It was clear, the Government submitted, that the Court had not attached any particular importance to the different practices which had been adopted fin different areas) on the matters in question in that case, and the same considerations applied in this case . The applicant also alleged, in relation to Article 14, that the legal provisions in question amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex . It was assumed that this complaint arose because certain of the provisions applied only to homosexual acts between males . However in the cases referred to by the applicant, the Commission had rejected similar complaints . The Government referred to a passage in the decision on Application No . 104/55, to the effect that Article 14 did not exclude the possibility of differentiating between the sexes in measures taken with regard to homosexuality for the protection of health or morals under Article 8, paragraph 2 . The present complaint under Article 14 should be declared inadmissible for similar reasons . The applicant had also alleged that the provisions in question discriminated against him on grounds of residence . The provisions concerned did not depend on residence in Northern Ireland but applied to any person committing an act there which infringed them . It was true that much criminal law in force in any territory was inherently likely to affect most frequently persons residing there . It did not follow that it discriminated against such residents . Such an argument would have serious implications for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction which was traditionally based primarily on the territorial character of the criminal law . Further, Article 14 did not require that in a State comprised of more than one legal system, the laws touching on the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention must apply uniformly throughout . Each system of law must be examined separately and an issue could arise under Article 14 only if the laws applicable within that system created differences in treatment . In the Handyside case, it was significant that the Court had not, when reviewing the issues under Article 14 ex officio, considered it necessary to examine the applicant's arguments based on different practices in different parts of the United Kingdom . The Government therefore requested that the application be declared inadmissible under Article 27, paragraphe 2 of the Convention and, in any event, in so far as the Commission had no power to grant the relief sought, that the application be dismissed in that respect as incompatible with the Convention .
- 123 -
2 . Initial observations of the applican t The applicant referred to two decisions of the House of Lords' the effect of which was, he submitted, to confirm the existence of an offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and an offence of conspiracy to outrage public decency . These offences had a potentially wider scope in Northern Ireland in their application to homosexual conduct than in England and Wales . They made potentially criminal advocacy of changes in homosexual laws . Explicit association in groups, clubs or societies by homosexual persons could be indictable . Counselling activities, befriending agencies and the like, so far as relating to homosexual persons, were of uncertain legal status . The applicant's case was principally addressed to the statutory offences . However these offences and the common law offences combined to give rise to incompatibility with the Convention in so far as they produced the adverse consequences claimed by the applicant in his original application and an affidavit (filed with his observationsl giving further details of the occasion in January 1976 when he was questioned by police, and of subsequent events . In this affidavit the applicant alleged that he had been questioned on 21 January 1976 at a police station, under caution, concerning homosexualoffences . Humiliating remarks had been made by police officers concerning material in his correspondence . Between January and June 1976 twenty members of the Gay Liberation Society had been questioned concerning homosexual offences . One person had been arrested under S 61 of the 1861 Act . Since January 1976 the applicant had suffered anxiety about prosecution In February 1977, after having learned that the Director of Public Prosecutions had recommended prosecution, he had been informed that a decision had been taken not to prosecute . Property taken from him by the police had then been returned . Concerning Article 8, the applicant submitted that any restrictions by public authority on the private sexual life of male homosexuals had to be justified under Article 8, paragraph 2 . The onus of proof that a restriction was necessary in a democratic society was on the Government . By referring to Application No . 104/55, the Government appeared to be justifying the homosexual laws in Northern Ireland on the ground that they were necessary for "the protection of health and morals" . That decision was twenty-two years old . The evaluation of what restrictions were necessary could not be an absolute one for all time .- The Commission migh take into account advances in knowledge concerning the nature of homosexual behaviour and changes in moral opinion . The applicant produced and referred to a Conspectus on Homosexual Laws in Europe, as evidence of the change of opinion in Europe . So far as necessity for "protection of health" was concerned, medical opinion was virtually unanimous that homosexuality could not be calegorised as a disease . In this respect the applicant referred to the Report of the Committee on ' Shsw v . Director of Public Prosecution 119611 2 All E .R . 44e ; Knuller Led r . Director of Public Prosecutions 119721 2 All E .R . 848.
- 124 -
Homosexual Offences and Prostitution' and to a recent decision of the Americar. Psychiatric Association to cease classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder . He submitted that far from protecting the health of homosexual persons, the restrictions in the penal law were themselves a source of psychiatric injury to the health of homosexuals, in so far as they involved the suppression of sexual parts of the personality and left them vulnerable to fear of blackmail and discovery . There was no cogent evidence of danger to the health of persons other than homosexuals if the restrictions in question were lifted . In this respect the applicant referred to Chapter V of the Wolfenden Report (sup . cit .) . "Protection of health" might mean the health of society . There was no evidence that the health of society in England and Wales had deteriorated since the Sexual Oftences Act 1967 was passed . In considering a justification based on the protection of morals, it was relevant that such an argument had not prevented passage of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 nor the undertaking that prosecutions would not be instituted in Scotland . In Northern Ireland a Government grant of L750 had been given to Cara-FriÃ©nd, a counselling and befriending agency for homosexuals run by homosexuals . It was inconsistent to maintain that restrictions were necessary on grounds of public morals while authorising expenditure on services which encouraged homosexuals to associate with other homosexuals . The Commission could take note of the change in moral climate towards homosexual conduct throughout Europe . It could also take into account that, Northern Ireland being a region where values were still strongly based on religious foundations, restriction by the law on homosexual conduct was less necessary to protect morality . The applicant accepted that the concept of a "margin of appreciation" could be applied to Article 8 as it applied to Article 10 . However, each Article of the Convention must first be considered on its own terms and each set of circumstances on its own merits . The margin of appreciation was subject to supervision by the Commission and Court (Handyside Judgment, Sup . cit., para . 49) . The principles laid down by the Court in that respect under Article 10, paragraph 2 applied muraris mutandls to Article 8, paragraph 2 . The Handyside case had involved executive acts Iseizure of books and criminal prosecution), whereas in the present case legislation was under consideration . The applicant accepted that the Convention imposed no obligation to restrict or limit the rights and freedoms it set forth, but the existence of legislation required greater scrutiny as being necessary in a democratic society than the failure uniformly to prosecute the book in question in Handyside . Concerning Article 14, the applicant referred to the general principles established in the Grandrath Case"and in the Belgian Lingu/stics Case" '
â¢ The'1Nolfenden Repon", 1957, Cmnd . 247, pare . 26 . â¢' Applicetion No . 2299/64, Veerbook X p . 626 . '' Eur . Coun . H .R ., Judgment of 23 July 1968 ISeriea A, Vol . 8), in perticuler paras . 8-10 at pp . 33-35 .
- 125 -
In relation to the question of sex discrimination he submitted that if restrictions on homosexual conduct were justitiable, there was no logical basis within the terms of Article 8, paragraph 2 for distinguishing between male and female homosexual conduct . The illogicity of the existing differentation was underlined by the adoption of an increasing number ot provisions outlawing sex discrimination . Throughout the United Kingdom these provisions applied equally between men and women . The restrictions in the criminal law of Northern Ireland, aimed solely at male homosexual conduct, had no objective or reasonable justitication under Article 8, paragraph 2 . The applicant was therefore a victim of a violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 . The applicant referred to the penalties available at common law for conspiracy offences, and under the relevant statutory provisions, including in particular the maximum penalty of life imprisonment under S . 61 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 . On considering the aim for the protection of health or morals and the sanctions used to advance that aim, there was a lack of a reasonable relationship of proportionality and thus a violation of Article 8 in connection with Article 14 for this reason . If for either reason the restrictions imposed on his conduct were in violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14, he was entitled under Article 8, paragraph 1 to the same respect for his private sexual life as was afforded to heterosexuals and female homosexuals . Northern Ireland law properly restricted heterosexual conduct within certain limits leg . as to the age of consent), but such restrictions only should be applied to the applicant as a homosexual person . The Government's argument concerning the applicant's complaint of discrimination based on residence was without substance . The fact that visitors to Northern Ireland, in addition to residents, were subject to the restrictions in question aggravated the position and served to emphasise the double standards applying in the United Kingdom . Whether a State comprised a single or different legal systems, it was obliged by Article 1 to secure minimum standards, including Articles 8 and 14, io all its citizens whatever region they resided in . The question of uniform minimum standards within different parts of the State had not been dealt with in the Handyside case . In support of his argument the applicant referred to the separate opinion of Judge Mosler in the Handyside case (Series A ., Vol 24, p . 32 ai p . 34) . The applicant was theretore a victim of a violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 since there was no objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment between homosexual persons in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom, or alternatively because the legislative means employed lacked proportionality . Finally the applicant submitted that he was entitled to the relief he sought, and in the light of Article 13 and the Commission's powers within Article 28 of the Convention, the relief he sought did not render the application incompatible with the Convention .
- 126 -
3 . Supplementary obse rvations of the respondent Government The Government referred to the applicant's submissions on the law of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and outrage public decency . The relevance of the cases he had cited was not clear . Even if his submissions as to the reach of these offences were correct (and at least the suggestion that advocacy of changes in homosexual laws could be criminal appeared without any foundation), it was not clear how the applicant considered that the activities he had referred to affected his private life . The decision in Knuller (sup . cit .) had been based on the fact that the advertisements concerned in the case were intended to assist or encourage other persons to take part in homosexual activities . Such activities did not fall within the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1 and in any event the reasons for prohibiting homosexual conduct as such applied a/ortiori to activities designed to assist or encourage such conduct and were justifiable under Article 8, paragraph 2 As to the suggestion that these offences had a wider scope in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, it was to be noted that in Knuller the law had already been amended by the 1967 Act, and the decision on the charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals was on the basis that the practices in question were no longer themselves criminal . h was also to be noted that the conviction in that case for conspiracy to outrage public decency had been quashed . As to the applicant's allegations concerning police conduct, the Government staled that on 21 January 1976 police went to his address to execute a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 . Another resident at his address had subsequently been convicted of offences under that Act . As a result of papers found, the applicant had been asked to go to a police station . He had been interviewed and taken back home . The papers had been retained . A complaint about police conduct had been investigated but did not reveal any improper conduct . The question whether the applicant should be prosecuted had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland who had decided on 25 January 1977 that he should not . This decision had been notified to the applicant on 23 February 1977 and his papers had then been returned . Two grants had been made to the organisation Cara-Friend . They were not intended to promote the commission of criminal offences but to support an organisation which appeared to act responsibly in giving advice and support to people with personal problems arising from homosexuality . They reflected the Government's view that legislation alone was not a sufficient solution to the problems homosexuality presented . The Government had not sought to take up a position on the question (argued by the applicant) whether homosexuality was a disease . Whilst since the decision on Application No . 104/55 (sup . cit .) there had been advances in knowledge and changes in moral opinion about homosexuality, the advance in knowledge had plainly not reached the stage where it could be determined how particular individuals would react to homosexual behaviour and such behaviour also raised moral issues on which many sections of society held strong views, o n
- 127 -
religious and other grounds . The considerations which led the Court to conclude in Handyside that States must be left a margin of appreciation in determining what measures were necessary ior the protection of morals, applied a fortiori to issues such as were raised in the present application, which largely concerned matters of ethical judgment The fact that las the applicant stated) Northern Ireland was a region where values were strongly based on religious foundations, provided a substantial argument for retention of legislative provisions calculated to reinforce and maintain those value s The Government attached the highest importance to securing the broad conseni of the people of Northern Ireland before legislating in such a sensitive and personal area . Possible changes in the law had to be approached with circumspection for several reasons . Public opinion in this field was, in general, more conservative in Northern Ireland than in England No benefit was conferred on homosexual persons by creating a hostile climate of opinion through excessive speed in developments in the law . Until 1972 the matter had been within the responsibility of ihe devolved Government and Parliament of Norlhern Ireland . Since direct rule the Government had made considerable endeavours to establish permanent constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland and had naturally been hesitant to introduce measures about which many people there might have reservations . Articles 13 and 28 of the Convention were not relevant to the relief the Commission could grant . The Government repeated their request that the application be declared inadmissible . 4 . Supplementa ry obse rv ations of the applican t The applicant observed thal the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights had recommended that the law in Northern Ireland be brought into line with the Sexual oifences Act 1967 . However they had not recommended that iuture amendments to the Act should apply automatically in Northern Ireland but that public reaction in Northern Ireland should be obtained so that if there was no "contraindication" such amendment should apply to Northern Ireland . Regional discrimination might therefore remain . Further, the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland would not answer the applicant's argument that he was discriminated against on sexual grounds, contrary to Article 14 with Article 8 The applicant otherwise relied on his initial observations .
THE LA W The applicant, who states that he is a homosexual, complains that laws in I force in Northern Ireland prohibiting male homosexual activity have involved and continue to involve an interference with his right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention . He complains in this respect of the eifeci of SS . 61 and 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, S . 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 and the common law offences of attempting to commit acts prohibited by these statutory provisions . He also submits tha t
- 128 -
these laws discriminate against him, firstly on sexual grounds in that his private sexual life, as a male homosexual, is thereby subject to greater restrictions than Ihat of (a) female homosexuals and (b) heterosexuals and secondly on grounds of his residence (or presencel in Northern Ireland, in that male homosexuals elsewhere in the United Kingdom are not subject to the same restrictions . He submits thal these differences in treatment show that the restrictions on his conduct imposed by the above-mentioned laws are not "necessary" and are Iherefore without justification under Article 8, paragraph 2 and that they also involve a violation of his rights under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 . Whilst the applicant has not been convicted or prosecuted for any offence contained in the above-mentioned laws, he alleges that he has suffered fear of prosecution and psychological upset as a result of the existence of these offences and as a result of various police action in connection with Ihem . In particular he alleges that he has himself been questioned by the police about homosexual olfences . The respondent Government have reserved their position on the question whether the applicant should, on the basis of the evidence he has produced, be regarded as a"victim" within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention . They have submltled, referring to previous case-law of the Commission and Court, that any interference with the applicant's private life which may have occurred was justifled under Article 8, paragraph 2 and that the provisions in question fall within the margin of appreciation left to states thereunder . They have submitted that Article 14 does not exclude the possibility of differentiating between the sexes in nieasures taken with regard to homosexuality under Article 8, paragraph 2 . They have further submitted that in a state with different legal systems, an issue could arise under Article 14 only if the laws applicable within a particular system created differences in treatment . They have requested that the application be declared inadmissible under Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention . Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention are in the following terms :
Article 8 "1 . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondenc e 2 . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and lreedoms of others . " Article 1 4 "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour ,
- 129-
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, properly, birth or other status . " The Commission, having carried out a preliminary examination of the parties' submissions concerning this part ot the application, finds that they raise important issues concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention, and in particular of the above Articles . The issues arising under Article 8 in itself, and in particular paragraph 2 thereof, and those arising under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 are closely linked and fall to be examined together Icf . Application No . 7215/75v . the United Kingdom, Decision of 5 October 19771 .â¢ This part of the application cannot therefore be described as manifestly ill-founded in any respecl . No other ground of inadmissibility appears and it must therefore be declared admissible and retained for examination on its merits . 2 . The applicant has also complained ot the existence in Northern Ireland of the common law offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency . He has submitted that in Northern Ireland these offences have a potentially wider scope in relation to homosexual conduct than in England and Wales He has suggested that they make advocacy of changes in homosexual laws potentially criminal, that explicit association in groups, clubs or societies by homosexual persons could be indictable and that counselling activities, befriending agencies and the like, so far as relating to homosexual persons, are of uncertain legal status . The respondent Government have suggesled that the relevance of these oftences to the present application is not clear and that activities such as those mentioned in lhe domestic authorities cited by the applicantâ¢â¢do not fall within the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1 . The Commission notes that the only Articles of the Convenlion invoked by the applicant in the present application are Article 8, paragraph 1, insofar as it guarantees the right to respect for private life and Article 14 which he invokes in conjunction therewith . However the applicant has not shown how the existence of these oftences, which appear by their very nature to concern public activily, could be said to have affected his private life . The Commission accordingly finds no appearance of a violation of these provisions in this respect . However in view of the applicant's submissions concerning the scope of these offences, the Commission has considered ex officio whether this part of the application discloses any appearance of a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Arlicle 10, or of his right to freedom of association with others, as guaranteed by Article 11 . The Commission first observes, as a general matter, that the applicant's suggestion thai the scope of these offences is wider in Northern Ireland, in view of the homosexuality laws lhere, than it is in England and Wales is unsubstantiated â¢ See P . 36 . â¢' Shew v . Director ot Public Prosecutions, Prosecutions, 119721 2 AII ER 888 .
( 1961) 2 AII ER 446. Knuller Ltd . v . Director of Public
-1 30 -
by reference to any authority . The case of Knuller, to which the applicant has referred, appears to contradict this suggestion . The Commission notes that that case involved charges of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and outrage public decency arising from the publication in England of advertisements inviting males to take part in homosexual activity . A majority of the House of Lords held that although homosexual acts between consenting adult males in private were no longer, by virtue of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, criminal offences, it was open to a jury to say that to assist or encourage persons to take part in such acts might be to corrupt them . Similarly it does not appear to have been suggested that the legality of the acts which the advertisements invited persons to participate in negatived the possibility that the advertisements would outrage public decency . The Commission therefore finds no reason to suppose, from the material submitted to it, that the applicant's suggestion is correct . The Commission finds no indication whatsoever that the scope of these offences is such that they could render illegal advocacy of changes in homosexual laws and thus restrict the applicant's freedom of expression . Furthermore whilst the applicant suggests that "explicit association" in groups, clubs or societies by homosexuals could be illegal and that counselling activities, befriending agencies and the like are of uncertain legal status, the Commission finds that the material submitted does not disclose that the scope of the offences is in fact such that their mere existence could restrict the exercise of the applicant's freedom of association in a manner contrary to Article 11 . It follows, in the Commission's opinion, that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be considered inadmissible under Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention . 3 . In his application the applicant made the following statement as to the "relief (he) sought " "The applicant seeks an examination by the Commission of his complaint that his rights have been violated and continue to be violated, to require the respondent Government to end such violations and compensation for pain and suffering" . The respondent Government have requested the Commission, on the ground that there is no power for it to grant such relief, to dismiss the application in that respect as incompatible with the Convention . The Commission finds it sufficient to observe that it has no power under the Convention to order a respondent Government to end a violation alleged by an applicant and no power to award compensation . Nevertheless it is open to an applicant to specify in his application to the Commission the nature of any redress which he seeks to obtain through the Convention proceedings . In this respect the Commission recalls that Rule 38, paragraph 1 Idl of its Rules of Procedure provides that an application under Article 25 of the Convention shall set out "a . . ." . sfarpoible,thjcfapliton
- 131 -
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES ADMISSIBLE . without prejudging the merits . the applicants complaints concerning the laws in force in Northern Ireland prohibiting homosexual activities between males (or attempts at such activities) : DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicants complaints concerning the offences ot conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decenc y
( 7RADUCiION )
EN FAI T Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s par le requÃ©rant dans sa requÃ¨te introductive, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant, Ã¢gÃ© de 30 ans au moment oÃ¹ il a introduit sa requÃ«te, exerce la profession d'expÃ©ditionnaire et rÃ©side Ã Belfast, en Irlande du Nord . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© par M . Francis Keenan, solicitor et M . Kevin Boyle, barrister Ã Belfast . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare qu'il est consciemment homosexuel depuis d'Ã¢ge de 14 ans et qu'il a, dÃ©s cette Ã©poque de sa vie, fait l'expÃ©rience d'attitudes sociales trÃ¨s rÃ©probatrices Ã l'Ã©gard des comportements homosexuels . II a Ã©galement appris que de tels comportements sont, en Irlande du Nord, une infraction pÃ©nale, Ã partir de l'Ã¢ge du consentement lÃ©gal Ã des relations hÃ©tÃ©rosexuelles . Depuis la prise de conscience de son homosexualitÃ©, le requÃ©rant a connu la crainte, renforcÃ©e par l'impossibilitÃ© d'obtenir des conseils, et s'est trouvÃ© dans un Ã©tat de souffrance et de dÃ©tresse . Cette crainte, qui a augmentÃ© Ã l'Ã¢ge adulte, est directement provoquÃ©e par la dÃ©tinition des comportements homosexuels comme Ã©tant des dÃ©lits en droit pÃ©nal De ce fait, le requÃ©rant a subi un prÃ©judice permanent dÃ» notamment Ã l'angoisse, Ã la peur de tracasseries, de chantages, de poursuites et du scandale qui en serait rÃ©sultÃ© . Les rapports de l'intÃ©ressÃ© avec sa famille ont Ã©tÃ© affectÃ©s par la crainte de ses parents que ses tendances homosexuelles soient connues et les dÃ©shonorent, la destruction des relations familiales normales a entrainÃ© pour le requÃ©rant des troubles psychologiques constants et lui a enlevA les motivations nÃ©cessaires pour progresser dans la vie . Il allÃ©gue qu'il a donc subi un prÃ©judice Ã©conomique direct du fait de la criminalisation de son Ã©tat d'homosexuel . Le requÃ©rant indique qu'il a Ã©galement participÃ© Ã des tentatives pour rÃ©former cette partie du droit pÃ©nal en Irlande du Nord Il prÃ©sente des copies des lettres, brochures et autres documents montrant les mesures prises par diffÃ©rente s
- 132 -
organisations auxquelles il a appartenu, pour obtenir une rÃ©forme du droit . Il ajoute que ces efforts sont demeurÃ©s vains et que l'adhÃ©sion aux groupes en question s'est accompagnÃ©e pour lui d'une grande anxiÃ©tÃ©, puisqu'il risquait des poursuites en vertu de la loi sur les associations Ã© but dÃ©lictueux . Le requÃ©ram allÃ©gue en outre qu'il a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© par la police en janvier 1976 au sujet de relations homosexuelles et intormÃ© que la loi pÃ©nale serait appliquÃ©e ; il en a dÃ©duit qu'il allait peut-Ãªtre Ãªtre poursuivi . Des journaux intimes et documents ont Ã©tÃ© saisis Ã son domicile et retenus par la police . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en particulier, de l'existence des infractions suivantes, prÃ©vues par le droit pÃ©nal d'Irlande du Nord : 1 . en vertu des articles 61 et 62 de la loi de 1861 relative aux dÃ©lits contre la personne (Offences against the Person Act) - les dÃ©lits de sodomie (passible au maximum de l'emprisonnement Ã vie) et de tentative de sodomie ; 2 . en vertu de l'article 11 de la loi de 1885 portant amendement au Code pÃ©nal (Criminal Law Amendment Act) - le dÃ©lit d'attentat aux mo,urs entre hommes (peine maximum de deux ans de prison) ; 3 . en droit coutumier - les tentatives de commettre les dÃ©lits ci-dessus (passibles des mÃ¨mes peines maxima) et le fait de s'entendre Ã plusieurs pour corrompre la morale publique et commettre un outrage Ã la pudeur (peine laissÃ©e Ã la discrÃ©tion du tribunal) . Le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã©galement aux dispositions de la loi de 1967 sur les dÃ©lits sexuels (Sexual Offences Act), selon laquelle, en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles seulement, un acte homosexuel commis en privÃ© entre parties consentantes de plus de vingt-et-un ans ne constitue pas une infraction .
GRIEF S Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'Ãªtre passible de poursuites pÃ©nales, en droit d'Irlande du Nord, parce qu'il est homosexuel . Il se plaint Ã©galement des craintes et des angoisses que lui fait Ã©prouver la possibilitÃ© de poursuites . Il allÃ©gue la violation de l'article 8 de la Convention Ã cet Ã©gard . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre d'avoir Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© par la police sur son Ã©tat, ses attitudes et son comportement d'homosexuel en janvier 1976 et fait valoir que l'organisation homosexuelle de rÃ©forme Ã laquelle il appartenait a fait l'objet depuis lors de tracasseries de la part de la police et que ces tracasseries ont Ã©tÃ© pour lui une source de peur et d'angoisse . Par ailleurs, le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir subi, en tant d'homosexuel, une discrimination injustifiable pour des motifs de sexe et de rÃ©sidence, en violation de l'article 14 de la Convention, puisque les dÃ©lits qui sont prÃ©vus en droit pÃ©nal d'Irlande du Nord ne se retrouvent pas dans le droit d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni et que le requÃ©rant n'aurait pas connu la crainte de poursuites s'il avait rÃ©sidÃ© dans ces autres rÃ©gions tout en Ã©tant homosexuel .
- 133 -
Le requÃ©rant demande Ã titre de rÃ©paration : L'examen de sa plainte par la Commission et des dÃ©marches afin d'obtenir du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur qu'il cesse de violer la Convention ; enfin, une indemnisation du prÃ©judice souffert .
ARGUMENTATION DU REQUÃRAN T Le requÃ©rant fait valoir qu'il est une Â« victime Â» au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention, compte tenu du prÃ©judice que lui a causÃ© la crainte de poursuites : le droit pÃ©nal a eu pour effet d'entraver ou d'inhiber la libre expression de sa sexualitÃ© ; il a subi des dommages et souffrances psychologiques ; l'interdiction d'Ã¨tre homosexuel et les contraintes lÃ©gales correspondantes l'ont deshonorÃ© socialement et lui ont fait perdre eslime et respect pour lui-mÃ©me ; l'exislence de dÃ©lits graves l'expose au chantage, Ã l'intimidation et aux tracasseries ; enfin, il souffre d'un Ã©tat de discrimination, en tant que citoyen du Royaume-Uni, pour des motifs de rÃ©sidence et de sexe . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue que l'article 8 de la Convention a Ã©tÃ© violÃ© puisqu'il a subi, en tant qu'homosexuel, des atteintes sÃ©rieuses Ã sa vie privÃ©e . Il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Commission que le droit au respecl de la vie privÃ©e concerne Ã©galement les homosexuels . Le requÃ©rant appuie cet argument sur un certain nombre de dÃ©cisions amÃ©rieures de la Commission' . Il appartiendrait au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur de montrer que les restrictions imposÃ©es par le droit pÃ©nal d'Irlande du Nord aux droits garantis par l'article 8, paragraphe 1 sont nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocralique, Ã la protection de la morale ou Ã d'autres fins indiquÃ©es dans l'article 8, paragraphe 2 Mais le Gouvernement ne peut se fonder sur l'articie 8, paragraphe 2 pour justifier l'atteinte aux droits garantis au requÃ©rant par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, puisque les restrictions en questions n'existent pas dans le droit pÃ©nal d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni et que, dans ces autres rÃ©gions, elles ne sont considÃ©rÃ©es comme nÃ©cessaires Ã la sauvegarde d'une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique pour aucune des raisons spÃ©cifiÃ©es Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . L'article 14 de la Convention est violÃ© en ce que des restrictions sont imposÃ©es par le droit pÃ©nal d'Irlande du Nord Ã des actes homosexuels commis par des hommes dans des circonstances oÃ¹ ils ne constitueraient pas des dÃ©lits selon les lois d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni . Le requÃ©rant a donc Ã©tÃ© victime d'une discriminalion fondÃ©e sur sa rÃ©sidence . Il fait valoir Ã©galement que Â« l'existence desdites infractions concernant les comportements homosexuels Ã©tablit une discrimination Ã son Ã©gard pour des motifs sexuels n . Il n'existe pas d'autoritÃ© nationale devant laquelle le requÃ©ranl aurait pu porter plainte pour violation des droits que lui garantissent les articles 8 et 14 de la Convention . Par ailleurs, il a entrepris des dÃ©marches, avec d'autres, pour faire respecter ses droits en utilisant la pÃ©tition et d'autres moyens constitutionnels . Le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã cet Ã©gard Ã des copies de sa correspondance avec des parlementaires et Ã d'autres documents sur cette action en vue d'obtenir une ' cf . par exemple RequÃªte NÂ° 1e0/55 . Annua i re 1, p . 17B .
- 134 -
rÃ©forme des lois . II allÃ©gue que la Convention ne peut Ã©tre invoquÃ©e dans l'ordre juridique interne d'Irlande du Nord et que tous les recours internes ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©puisÃ©s, si bien que l'article 26 de la Convention n'est pas un obstacle Ã la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte .
PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N La Commission a examinÃ© la question de la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte le 10 dÃ©cembre 1976 et a dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, paragraphe 2 b) de son RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur, d'en donner connaissance au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur et de l'inviter Ã prÃ©senter des observations par Ã©crit . Celles-ci sont parvenues Ã la Commission le 22 fÃ©vrier 1977 et la rÃ©ponse du requÃ©rant le 7 avril 1977 . La Commission a examinÃ© Ã nouveau la requÃªte le 18 mai 1977 et dÃ©cidÃ© d'inviter le Gouvernement Ã prÃ©senter des observations Ã© crites complÃ©mentaires sur la recevabilitÃ© . Celles-ci ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©es le 23 aoÃ»t 1977 . Le Gouvernement y fait valoir qu'il est inutile de continuer Ã s'occuper de l'affaire avant que les propositions relatives Ã la nouvelle lÃ©gislation de l'Irlande du Nord concernant l'homosexualitÃ© soient publiÃ©es . Cette lÃ©gislation semble rÃ©pondre aux objectifs de la plainte et il serait utile que le requÃ©rant, aprÃ©s avoir eu la possibilitÃ© de commenter ces textes, indique Ã la Commission si leur mise en ce uvre lui permettrait de retirer sa requÃªte . Les observations complÃ©mentaires du requÃ©rant ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©es le 22 septembre 1977 . II y commente Ã© galement la question de la procÃ©dure future, en indiquant qu'il n'est pas disposÃ© Ã retirer sa requÃ©te et souhaite au contraire l'activer . Le 28 novembre 1977, le requÃ©rant a prÃ©cisÃ© qu'aucune date n'a Ã© tÃ© indiquÃ©e en ce qui concerne la publication des propositions de rÃ©forme ou leur adoption Ã©ventuelle . De rÃ©centes dÃ©clarations officielles donnent Ã penser que ce projet pourrait Ãªtre abandonnÃ© ou indÃ»ment retardÃ© . Le requÃ©rant demande, en consÃ©quence, que sa requÃ©te soit examinÃ©e sans dÃ©semparer .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S PremiÃ¨res observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur donne des prÃ©cisions sur les faits et les textes pertinents . Il reproduit les articles 61 et 62 de la loi de 1861 relative aux infractions contre la personne et l'article 11 de la loi de 1885 portant amendement au droit pÃ©nal, et explique les infractions qui y sont prÃ©vues . L'application des peines maxima indiquÃ©es est peu probable . En fait, la peine dÃ©pend des circonstances . La loi de 1967 relative aux dÃ©lits sexuels, qui s'applique seulement Ã l'Angleterre et au Pays de Galles, stipule que la sodomie ou les actes d'outrage Ã la pudeur commis en privÃ© entre deux hommes consentants 8gÃ©s de 21 ans ou davantage ne sont pas des infractions . En Ecosse, on ne poursuit pas, en pratique, les actes homosexuels commis en privÃ© entre hommes consentants de plus de 21 ans, bien que de tels actes soient interdits par la loi .
- 135 -
Le Gouvernement rÃ©serve sa position quant Ã l'interprÃ©tation sur la base de la jurisprudence des infractions de droit coutumier mentionnÃ©es dans la requÃ©te . Ces dÃ©lits de conspiration ne constituent apparemment pas un point capital des griefs invoquÃ©s . Le requÃ©rant ne pourrait sans doute pas affirmer que les dispositions de droit coutumier violent la Convention si les textes lÃ©gislatifs en question Ã©taient considÃ©rÃ©s comme compatibles avec elle . On ne voit pas clairement Ã quels points de vues le requÃ©rant juge contraires Ã la Conventlon les dispositions du droit d'Irlande du Nord dont il se plaint Toutefois, il a indiquÃ© dans sa demande que ces lois le poussaient Ã Â« Ã©migrer vers d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni dans lesquelles le droit a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©formÃ© Â» . Il parait donc raisonnable de supposer que les griefs du requÃ©rant ont trait aux dispositions en question seulement dans la mesure oÃ¹ elles s'appliquent Ã des actes homosexuels commis en privÃ© entre hommes consentants Ã¢gÃ©s de 21 ans ou plus . La lÃ©gislation sur l'homosexualitÃ© en Irlande du Nord est en cours d'examen et des mesures sont prises pour connaitre l'avis de la population, y compris la Commission consultative permanente pour les Droits de l'Homme Icette Commission a recommandÃ©, dans son rapport publiÃ© le 19 juillet 1977, que le droit d'Irlande du Nord soit harmonisÃ© avec celui de l'Angleterre et du Pays de Galles ; le Gouvernement produit une copie de ce rapport et indique que le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat espÃ©re, au cours de l'annÃ©e 1977, donner suite Ã ces recommandations en publiant des propositions sous la forme d'un projet de loi' I En ce qui concerne la recevabTtÃ©, le Gouvernement rÃ©senie tout d'abord sa position quant au point de savoir si le requÃ©rant doit, Ã©tant donnÃ© les faits qu'il allÃ©gue, Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme une victime, au sens de l'anicle 25 . Le Gouvernement reconnait que les dispositions visÃ©es, dans la mesure oÃ¹ elles risquent d'affecter le requÃ©rant, peuvent constituer en principe une ingÃ©rence dans sa vie privÃ©e, au sens de l'article 8, paragraphe 1 Toutefois, dans chacune des affaires mentionnÃ©es par le requÃ©rant INÂ° 104/55, etc . . .l, la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevables des plaintes du mÃªme ordre parce que l'institution d'un dÃ©lit d'homosexualitÃ© se justifiait en vertu de l'article 8 , paragraphe 2 . De mÃªme, la prÃ©sente requÃªte est irrecevable en vertu de l'article 8 . Le requÃ©rant a soulignÃ© la condition figurant Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2, selon laquelle les restrictions doivent Ã¨tre nÃ©cessaires . A cet Ã©gard, le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ©re aux passages de l'ArrÃªt Handyside dans lesquels la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dÃ©clare que l'article 10, paragraphe 2 laisse une marge d'apprÃ©ciation aux Etats" . Le terme Â« nÃ©cessaire Â» a le mÃ©me poids dans le conlexte de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 que dans celui de l'article 10, paragraphe 2 . Les dispositions juridiques dont se plaint le requÃ©rant relÃ©vent de la marge d'apprÃ©ciation contenue dans l'article 8, paragraphe 2 .
' Les arguments entre parenthÃ©ses ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©senlÃ©s dans les observations Gouvernement et sont rÃ©sumPs ici par commoditÃ© .
" ArrÃ¨t du 7 dÃ©cembre 1976, SÃ©rie A . NÂ° 24, para . 48 .
- 136 -
comp/Amentaires du
Le requÃ©rant a soulignÃ© Ã©galement l'absence d'infractions analogues dans d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni . Des arguments similaires avaient Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s lors de l'affaire Handyside et la Cour avait estimÃ© Ipara . 48) que les lois sur les nÃ©cessitÃ©s morales variaient selon le lieu . Ces arguments sont traitÃ©s dans le paragraphe 54 de l'ArrÃ©t, auquel le Gouvernement se rÃ©tÃ©re . La Cour y dÃ©clare notamment que l'article 10, paragraphe 2 n'astreint en aucun cas les autoritÃ©s Ã imposer des Â« restrictions Â» ou Â« sanctions Â» dans le domaine de la libertÃ© d'expression . Il est Ã©vident, estime le Gouvernement, que la Cour n'a pas attachÃ© d'importance particuliÃ©re aux diffÃ©rentes pratiques adoptÃ©es (selon les rÃ©gionsl dans les domaines en question, et les mÃªmes considÃ©rations s'appliquent Ã la prÃ©sente affaire . Le requÃ©rant a soulignÃ© par ailleurs, eu Ã©gard Ã l'article 14, que les dispositions visÃ©es Ã©quivalaient Ã une discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe . On peut supposer que ce grief a Ã©tÃ© avancÃ© parce que certaines des dispositions s'appliquent seulement Ã des actes homosexuels entre hommes . Cependant, dans les affaires mentionnÃ©es par le requÃ©rant, la Commission a rejetÃ© des griefs analogues . Le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã un passage de la dÃ©cision sur la requÃ©te NÂ° 104/55 selon lequel l'article 14 n'exclut pas la possibilitÃ© de faire une diffÃ©rence entre les sexes dans les mesures prises en matiÃ©re d'homosexualitÃ© pour la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . Le prÃ©sent grief tirÃ© de l'article 14 doit Ã¨tre dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable pour des raisons analogues . Le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© en outre que les disposilions en question constituaient Ã son Ã©gard une discrimination fondÃ©e sur la rÃ©sidence . Or, l'appiication de ces dispositions ne dÃ©pend pas de la rÃ©sidence en Irlande du Nord ; celles-ci s'appliquent Ã toute personne qui y commettrait un acte considÃ©rÃ© comme une infraction . II esi exact que le droit pÃ©nal en vigueur dans un territoire quelconque affecte d'abord, par la force des choses, les personnes qui rÃ©sident sur ce territoire . On ne peut en conclure qu'il Ã©tablit une discrimination Ã l'Ã©gard de ces habitants . Un tel argument aurait des incidences sÃ©rieuses sur l'exercice de la juridiction pÃ©nale, traditionnellement fondÃ©e principalement sur le caractÃ©re territorial du droit . En outre, l'article 14 ne dit pas que les lois iouchant les droits et libertÃ©s Ã©noncÃ©s dans la Convention doivent Ãªtre appliquÃ©es uniformÃ©ment dans l'ensemble d'un Etat qui comprend plus d'un systÃ©me juridique . Chaque systÃ©me de droit doit Ãªtre examinÃ© sÃ©parÃ©ment et l'article 14 ne pourrait Ãªtre mis en cause que si les lois en vigueur dans un systÃ¨me juridique crÃ©aient des diffÃ©rences de traitement . Dans l'affaire Handyside, il est significatif que la Cour, en examinant ex officio les points relevant de l'aÂ«icle 14 n'ait pas jugÃ© nÃ©cessaire d'examiner les arguments du requÃ©rant fondÃ©s sur des pratiques diffÃ©rentes selon les rÃ©gions du Royaume-Uni . Le Gouvernement demande en consÃ©quence que la requÃªte soit dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention et, quoi qu'il en soit, dans la mesure oÃ¹ la Commission n'est pas habilitÃ©e Ã accorder la rÃ©paration demandÃ©e, que la requÃ¨te soit rejetÃ©e comme Ã©tant, de ce fait, incompatible avec la Convention .
- 137 -
2 . PremiÃ¨res observations du requÃ©ran t Le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã deux dÃ©cisions de la Chambre des Lords' qui confirment, selon lui, l'existence d'un dÃ©lit de conspiration en vue de corrompre la morale publique et d'un dÃ©lit de conspiration en vue d'outrage Ã la pudeur . Ces dÃ©lits ont une portÃ©e potentiellement plus large en Irlande du Nord, oÃ¹ ils englobent les comportements homosexuels, qu'en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles . Ãls rendent potentiellement illÃ©gale toute action pour rÃ©former les lois relatives Ã l'homosexualitÃ© L'association explicite d'homosexuels en groupes, clubs ou sociÃ©tÃ©s peut donner lieu Ã des poursuites . Les organisations de conseils, rencontres et autres ont une situation juridique peu sÃ»re lorsqu'elles s'adressent aux homosexuels . Les griefs du requÃ©rant concernent principalement les infractions prÃ©vues par une loi . Toutefois, ces infractions et les dÃ©lits de droit coutumier s'associent pour aboulir Ã une incompatibilitÃ© avec la Convention dans la mesure oÃ¹ ils ont les effets nÃ©fastes indiquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant dans sa requÃªte introductive et dans une dÃ©claration sous serment oÃ¹ il donne des prÃ©cisions concernant son interrogatoire de janvier 1976 par la police et les Ã©vÃ©nements ultÃ©rieurs . Dans cette dÃ©claration, le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue qu'il a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© le 21 janvier 1976 dans un commissariat au sujet de dÃ©lits homosexuels aprÃ©s avoir Ã©tA averti que ses rÃ©ponses pourraient Ã¨tre retenues contre lui . Des remarques humiliantes sur certains Ã©lÃ©ments de sa correspondance lui ont AtÃ© faites par les policiers . Entre janvier et juin 1976, vingt membres de la Â« Gay Liberation Society x ont Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ©s pour infractions homosexuelles . Une personne a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ©e en vertu de l'article 61 de la loi de 1861 . Depuis janvier 1976, le requÃ©rant craint des poursuites En fÃ©vrier 1977, aprÃ©s avoir appris que le Parquet avail recommandÃ© de telles mesures, il a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© qu'une dÃ©cision contraire avait Ã©tÃ© prise . Des effets qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© enlevÃ©s par la police lui ont alors Ã©tÃ© rendus . En ce qui concerne l'article 8, le requÃ©rant tait valoir que toutes restrictions imposÃ©es par les autoritÃ©s publiques Ã la vie sexuelle privÃ©e d'homosexuels doit se justifier aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . La charge de prouver que des restrictions sont nÃ©cessaires dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique incombe au Gouvernement . En se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã la requÃ¨te NÂ° 104/55, le Gouvernement semble justifier les lois d'Irlande du Nord sur l'homosexualitÃ© en les dÃ©clarant nÃ©cessaires Ã Â« la protection de la santÃ© et de la morale Â» . Cette dÃ©cision date de vingt-deux ans . L'Ã©valuation des restrictions nÃ©cessaires ne saurait Ãªtre absolue et dÃ©finitive . La Commission peut tenir compte des progrÃ©s dans les connaissances sur les comportements homosexuels et du changement des opinions sur la morale . Le requÃ©rant produit et cite une Etude gÃ©nÃ©rale du droit relatif Ã l'homosexualitÃ© en Europe, pour montrer les changements d'opinion qui y sont intervenus . S'il s'agit de protÃ©ger la santÃ©, les mÃ©decins sont virtuellement unanimes Ã considÃ©rer que l'homosexualitÃ© ne peut Ãªtre classÃ©e parmi les maladies . A cet ' ( Shew v . Direclor of Public Prosecutions) 11%1) 2 AII . E .R . 446 ;(Knuller SARL v . Director of Public Prosecutions ) 119721 2 AII . E .R . e 48 .
- 138 -
Ã©gard, le requÃ©rant mentionne le rapport du ComitÃ© sur les dÃ©lits homosexuels et la prostitution' et une dÃ©cision rÃ©cente de l'Â« American Psychiatric Association Â» tendant Ã ne plus inclure l'homosexualitÃ© parmi les troubles mentaux . Le requÃ©rant affirme que les restrictions lÃ©gales, loin de protÃ©ger la santÃ© des homosexuels, sont nuisibles par elles-mÃªmes Ã leur Ã©tat mental puisqu'elles tendent Ã supprimer l'Ã©lÃ©ment sexuel de leur personnalitÃ© et les expose au chantage et Ã la crainte d'Ãªtre dÃ©couverts . Rien ne donne Ã penser que la levÃ©e des restrictions en question reprÃ©senterait un danger pour la santÃ© de personnes autres que les homosexuels . Sur ce point, le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ©re au chapitre V du rapport Wolfenden (sup . cit .l . L'expression Â« protection de la santÃ© Â» semble viser la santÃ© publique . Aucune dÃ©tÃ©rioration de la santÃ© publique ne semble avoir Ã©tÃ© constatÃ©e en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles depuis l'adoption de la loi de 1967 relative aux dÃ©lits sexuels . Si on envisage une justification fondÃ©e sur la protection de la morale, il y a lieu de rappeler que cet argument n'a pas empÃ©chÃ© l'adoption de la loi de 1967 ni la dÃ©cision que des poursuites ne seraient plus exercÃ©es en Ecosse . En Irlande du Nord, une subvention gouvernementale de 750 livres a Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e Ã l'organisme Â« Cara-Friend Â», agence de conseils et de rencontres pour homosexuels, gÃ©rÃ©e par des homosexuels . II est incohÃ©rent de prÃ©tendre que des restrictions s'imposent pour des raisons de morale publique tout en attribuant une subvention Ã des services qui permettent Ã des homosexuels d'en connaitre d'autres. La Commission devrait prendre acte des changements du climat moral Ã l'Ã©gard des comportements homosexuels dans toute d'Europe . Elle pourrait aussi considÃ©rer que l'Irlande du Nord est une rÃ©gion oÃ¹ les valeurs conse rv ent des fondements religieux solides et que des resÂ«ictions lÃ©gales aux comportements homosexuels y sont moins nÃ©cessaires qu'ailleurs pour protÃ©ger la morale . Le requÃ©rant admet que la notion de Â« marge d'apprÃ©ciation Â» peut s'appliquer Ã l'article 8 comme Ã l'article 10 . Toutefois, chaque article de la Convention doit en premier lieu Ã¨tre considÃ©rÃ© selon le sens de ses termes et toute situation de fait pour elle-mÃªme . La marge d'apprÃ©ciation est sujette au contrÃ´le de la Commission et de la Cour larr@t Handyside, sup . cit ., para . 49) . Les principes Ã©tablis par la Cour Ã cet Ã©gard dans le cadre de l'article 10, paragraphe 2 s'appliquent, mutatis mutandis, Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . L'affaire Handyside portait sur des actes de rÃ©pression (saisie de livres et poursuites pÃ©nales) alors qu'il s'agit dans la prÃ©sente action d'une lÃ©gislation . Le requÃ©rant reconnaÃ®t que la Convention n'impose aucune obligation de restreindre ou limiter les droits et libertÃ©s qu'elle Ã©nonce, mais l'existence d'une lÃ©gislation demande un examen plus attentif du point de vue de sa nÃ©cessitÃ© dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique que l'absence d'uniformitÃ© dans les poursuites contre un livre comme celui de l'affaire Handyside .
â¢ Rappurt Wolfenoen a . 1957, Cmnd . 247, pera . 26.
- 139 -
Au sujet de l'anicle 14, le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ©re aux principes gÃ©nÃ©raux Ã©tablis dans l'affaire Grandrarh' et dans l'affaire linguistique belge" . Concernant la discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe, le requÃ©rant avance l'argument suivant : si des restrictions au comportement homosexuel sont justifiÃ©es, il est absurde, aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, d'Ã©tablir une distinction entre homosexuels hommes et femmes . L'illogisme de cette diffÃ©renciation est rendu plus flagrant encore par d'adoption de disposition sans cesse plus nombreuses qui interdisent la discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe . Dans l'ensemble du Royaume-Uni, ces lois s'appliquent Ã©galement aux hommes et aux femmes . Les restrictions du droit pÃ©nal d'Irlande du Nord, relatives seulement aux comportements homosexuels des hommes, n'ont pas de justification objective ou raisonnable en vertu de l'artiGe 8, paragraphe 2 . Le requÃ©rant est donc victime d'une violation de l'article 8 combinÃ© avec l'article 1 4 Le requÃ©rant fait allusion aux peines existant en droit coutumier pour les dÃ©lits de conspiration ainsi qu'aux dispositions lÃ©gislatives pertinentes, notamment la peine maximum de prison Ã vie stipulÃ©e Ã l'article 61 de la loi de 1861 relative aux dÃ©lits contre la personne . Si l'on considÃ¨re l'objectif de protection de la santÃ© et de la morale, et les sanctions employÃ©es pour atteindre cet objectif, il n'y a aucun rapport raisonnable de proportionalitÃ©, et donc violation de l'article 8 combinÃ© avec l'article 14 . Si pour l'une ou l'autre des deux raisons invoquÃ©es, les restrictions imposÃ©es au requÃ©rant violent l'article 8 combinÃ© avec l'article 14, PintÃ©ressÃ© doit aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 1 bÃ©nÃ©ficier du mÃ¨me respect de la vie sexuelle privÃ©e que les hÃ©tÃ©rosexuels et les homosexuelles Le droit d'Irlande du Nord maintient 8 luste titre les comportements hÃ©tÃ©rosexuels dans certaines limites (quant Ã l'Ã¢ge du consentement, par exemple) mais seules ces limites doivent s'appliquer au requÃ©rant en tant qu'homosexuel . L'argumentation du Gouvernement sur le grief du requÃ©rant quant Ã la discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe n'est d'aucun poids Le fait que les visiteurs comme les rÃ©sidents soient soumis, en Irlande du Nord, aux restrictions en question aggrave la situation et ne fait que souligner la dualitÃ© des normes appliquÃ©es au Royaume-Uni Qu'un Etat ait un ou plusieurs systÃ¨mes juridiques, il est tenu par l'article 1 d'assurer des normes minima, y compris dans les domaines visÃ©s par les articles 8 et 14, Ã tous les citoyens sans considÃ©ration de leur lieu de rÃ©sidence . La question de normes minima uniformes dans les diffÃ©rentes parties de l'Etat n'a pas Ã©tÃ© traitÃ©e lors de l'affaire Handyside Le requÃ©rant Ã©taie cet argument sur l'opinion sÃ©parÃ©e du Juge Mosler dans l'affaire Handyside ISÃ©rie A, Vol . 24, pp . 32 Ã 341 . Le requÃ©rant est donc victime d'une violation de l'article 8 combinÃ© avec l'article 14, puisqu'il n'existe pas de justification objective et raisonnable de l a â¢ ReouÃ©te NÂ° 2299/64, Annuaire X, p . 626 . Cour eur . D .H ., ArrÃªt du 23 iuillet 1988 ISArie A, Vol . 81 . pp . 33 d 35 .
- 140 -
notamment les paragraphes 8 Ã 10 ,
diffÃ©rence de traitement entre les homosexuels d'Irlande du nord et ceux d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni, ou encore parce que les moyens lÃ©gislatifs utilisÃ©s sont disproportionnÃ©s . Enfin, le requÃ©rant fait valoir qu'il a droit Ã la rÃ©paration sollicitÃ©e et que sa demande de rÃ©paration, compte tenu de l'article 13 et des pouvoirs de la Commission en vertu de l'article 28, ne rend pas la requÃªte incompatible avec la Convention . 3 . Observations complÃ©mentaires du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ©re aux arguments du requÃ©rant sur le droit relatif Ã la conspiration pour corrompre la morale publique et commettre un outrage Ã la pudeur . Il n'est pas Ã©vident que les affaires citÃ©es puissent Ãªtre invoquÃ©es en l'occurrence . MÃªme si les arguments quant Ã la portÃ©e des dÃ©lits Ã©taient fondÃ©s (et, en tout cas, l'affirmation selon laquelle une action pour la rÃ©forme des lois relatives Ã l'homosexuaiitÃ© peut Ã«tre jugÃ©e dÃ©lictueuse parait sans fondement), on voit mal de quelle maniÃ©re les activitÃ©s mentionnÃ©es par le requÃ©rant ont, de son point de vue, affectÃ© sa vie privÃ©e . La dÃ©cision prise dans l'affaire Knuller (sup . cit .) Ã©tait due au fait que la publicitÃ© visÃ©e avait pour but d'aider ou d'encourager d'autres personnes Ã participer Ã des activitÃ©s homosexuelles . De telles activitÃ©s ne relÃ©vent pas de l'article 8, paragraphe 1 et, en tout Ã©tat de cause, les raisons d'interdire des comportements homosexuels en tant que tels s'appliquent Ã fortiori aux tentatives pour favoriser de tels comportements et sont fondÃ©es aux termes de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . Quant Ã l'argument selon lequel ces dÃ©lits auraient une portÃ©e plus grande en Irlande du Nord qu'en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles, il faut noter que lors de l'affaire Knuller le droit avait dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© amendÃ© par la loi de 1977 et que la dÃ©cision relative Ã l'accusation de conspiration pour corrompre la morale publique avait Ã©tÃ© prise parce que les pratiques visÃ©es n'Ã©taient plus considÃ©rÃ©es en elles-mÃ©mes comme des infractions . Il y a lieu de remarquer Ã©galement que, dans ce cas, la condamnation pour conspiration en vue d'un outrage Ã la pudeur a Ã©tÃ© annulÃ©e . En ce qui concerne les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant relatives Ã l'attitude de la police, le Gouvernement indique que des agents se sont rendus au domicile de l'intÃ©ressÃ© le 21 janvier 1976 pour exÃ©cuter un mandat d'arrÃ¨t en application de la loi de 1971 relative Ã l'abus des drogues IMisuse of Drugs Act) . Un autre habitant de l'immeuble a Ã©tÃ© ultÃ©rieurement condamnÃ© pour infraction Ã cette loi . A la suite de la dÃ©couverte de certains documents, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã se rendre au Commissariat . Il a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© et ramenÃ© chez lui . Les documents ont Ã©tÃ© conservÃ©s par la police . Une plainte au sujet du comportement de cette derniÃ©re a donnÃ© lieu Ã une enquÃªte qui n'a rien rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© d'irrÃ©gulier . La question de savoir si le requÃ©rant devait Ã©tre poursuivi a Ã©tÃ© soumise au MinistÃ©re Public d'Irlande du Nord, qui a pris une dÃ©cision nÃ©gative le 25 janvier 1977 . Cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ©e au requÃ©rant le 23 fÃ©vrier et ses documents lui ont Ã©tÃ© rendus .
Deux subventions ont Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©es Ã l'organisation Â« Cara-Friend n . Elles ne tendent pas Ã encourager des infractions mais Ã soutenir une organisation qu i
- 141 -
semble agir raisonnablement en conseillant et en aidant les personnes qui Ã©prouvent des difficultÃ©s dues Ã leur homosexualitÃ© . Le Gouvernement a pris de telles mesures parce qu'il estime que la lÃ©gislation ne suffit pas Ã rÃ©soudre les problÃ©mes posÃ©s par l'homosexualitÃ© . Le Gouvernement n'a pas cherchÃ© Ã prendre position sur le point labordÃ© par le requÃ©rantl de dÃ©terminer si l'homosexualitÃ© est une maladie . S'il y a eu des progrÃ©s dans les connaissances et des changements de l'opinion morale sur l'homosexualitÃ© depuis la dÃ©cision concernant la requÃ©te NÂ° 104/55 Isup. cir.l, ces progrÃ©s dans les connaissances n'ont Ã©videmment pas encore atteint le point oÃ¹ l'on aurait appris comment tel ou tel individu pourrait rÃ©agir Ã un comportement homosexuel : les attitudes homosexuelles touchent, en outre, Ã des domaines moraux dans lesquels de nombreux groupes sociaux ont des vues bien arrÃ©tÃ©es, pour des raisons religieuses et autres . Les considÃ©rations qui ont amenÃ© la Cour Ã estimer, dans l'affaire Handyside, qu'une marge d'apprÃ©ciation doit Ãªtre laissÃ©e aux Etats pour dÃ©terminer les mesures nÃ©cessaires Ã la protection de la morale s'appliquent 8 (onrbri aux questions abordÃ©es dans la prÃ©sente requÃ©te, car ces question relÃ©vent en grande partie d'un jugement Ã©thique Le fait (mentionnÃ© par le requÃ©rant) que l'Irlande du Nord soit une rÃ©gion oÃ¹ les valeurs ont des fondements religieux solides est un argument important en faveur du maintien de dispositions lÃ©gislatives conÃ§ues pour renforcer et sauvegarder ces valeurs . Le Gouvernement souhaite particuliÃ©rement s'assurer l'appui gÃ©nÃ©ral de la population d'Irlande du Nord avant de lÃ©gifÃ©rer dans un domaine aussi dÃ©licat et personnel . D'Ã©ventuelles rÃ©formes juridiques doivent Ãªtre abordÃ©es avec prudence pour plusieurs raisons . L'opinion publique en la matiÃ©re est, dans l'ensemble, plus conservatrice en Irlande du Nord qu'en Angleterre Les homosexuels ne gagneraient rien au cllmat hostile que crÃ©erait une rapiditÃ© excessive dans l'Ã©volution du droit . Jusqu'en 1972, la responsabilitÃ© de ces problÃ©mes incombait au Gouvernement dÃ©lÃ©guÃ© et au Parlement d'Irlande du Nord Depuis le rattachement direct, le Gouvernement a fait de gros efforts pour Ã©tablir des dispositions constitutionnelles permanentes dans cette rÃ©gion et a naturellement hÃ©sitÃ© Ã introduire des mesures que beaucoup auraient dÃ©sapprouvÃ©es . Les articles 13 et 28 de la Convention ne concernent pas la question de savoir si la Commission peut allouer une rÃ©paration . Le Gouvernement persiste Ã conclure que la requÃ¨te doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevabl e Observations complÃ©mentaires du reqÃ¹Ã©ran t Le requÃ©rant observe que le ComitÃ© consultatif permanent pour les Droits de l'Homme a recommandÃ© l'harmonisation du droit d'Irlande du Nord avec la loi de 1967 relative aux dÃ©lits sexuels Toutefois, ce ComitÃ© n'a pas prÃ©conisÃ© l'application automatique des futurs amendements Ã la loi en Irlande du Nord, mais jugÃ© souhaitable de chercher Ã connaÃ®tre l'opinion publique dans cette rÃ©gion pour que les amendements y soient adoptÃ©s s'il n'y a pas de Â« contre-indication Â» . La discrimination selon les rÃ©gions pouÂ«ait donc Ãªtre maintenue . En outre, l'exten-
- 142 -
sion de la loi de 1967 Ã l'Irlande du Nord ne rÃ©pondrait pas Ã l'argument du requÃ©rant selon lequel il a subi une discrimination fondÃ©e sur le sexe, contrairement Ã l'article 14 combinÃ© avec l'article 8 . Par ailleurs, le requÃ©rant s'en tient Ã ses observations initiales .
EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant, qui dÃ©clare Ãªtre homosexuel, se plaint que les lois en vigueur en Irlande du Nord qui interdisent les pratiques homosexuelles entre hommes ont portÃ© atteinte et continuent Ã porter atteinte Ã son droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e, en violation de l'article 8 de la Convention . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã cet Ã©gard des effets des articles 61 et 62 de la loi de 1861 relative aux dÃ©lits contre la personne de l'article 11 de la loi de 1885 portant amendement au droit pÃ©nal et des dÃ©lits de droit coutumier de tentative de commettre les actes interdits par ces dispositions statutaires . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue en outre que ces lois Ã©tablissent Ã son Ã©gard, une discrimination en premier lieu fondÃ©e sur le sexe, en ce sens qu'il subit, en tant qu'homosexuel, des restrictions Ã sa vie sexuelle privÃ©e plus grande que (a) les homosexuelles et Ibl les hÃ©tÃ©rosexuels, et en second lieu, fondÃ©e sur la rÃ©sidence (ou prÃ©sence) en Irlande du Nord, en ce sens que les homosexuels ne font pas l'objet des mÃ©mes restrictions dans d'autres parties du Royaume-Uni . Le requÃ©rant affirme que ces diffÃ©rences de traitement dÃ©montrent que les restrictions imposÃ©es Ã sa conduite par les lois prÃ©citÃ©es ne sont pas a nÃ©cessaires Â» et ne se justifient donc pas en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, et qu'elles impliquent par ailleurs une violation de ses droits aux termes de l'article 14 combinÃ© avec l'article 8 . Si le requÃ©rant n'a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© ou poursuivi pour aucun des dÃ©lits prÃ©cÃ©demment mentionnÃ©s, il dÃ©clare que le fait que ces dÃ©lits soient prÃ©vus, de mÃªme que les diverses mesures de police prises de ce fait l'ont exposÃ© Ã la crainte de poursuites et Ã une angoisse psychique . Il allÃ©gue notamment qu'il a Ã©tÃ© lui-mÃªme interrogÃ© par la police au sujet de dÃ©lits homosexuels . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur rÃ©serve sa position quant au point de savoir si le requÃ©rant doit, sur la base des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve qu'il a fournis, Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme une Â« victime Â», au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention . Le Gouvernement affirme, en invoquant la jurisprudence de la Commission et de la Cour, que toute ingÃ©rence dans la vie privÃ©e du requÃ©rant se justifie en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 et que les dispositions en question relÃ©vent de la marge d'apprÃ©ciation laissÃ©e aux Etats par ledit article . Il soutient que l'article 14 n'exclut pas la possibilitÃ© de faire une diffÃ©rence entre les sexes dans les mesures relatives Ã l'homosexualitÃ© prises conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . II soutient en outre que, dans un Etat comportant diffÃ©rents systÃ©mes juridiques, un problÃ©me ne peut se poser sur le terrain de l'article 14 que si les lois Ã©tablies dans le cadre d'un systÃ©me juridique dÃ©terminÃ© crÃ©ent des diffÃ©rences de traitement . Le Gouvernement conclut que la requÃ¨te soit dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Les articles 8 et 14 de la Convention sont libellÃ©s comme suit :
- 143 -
Article 8 Â« 1 . Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondanc e 2 II ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sÃ¹retÃ© publique, au bien-Ãªtre Ã©conomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des intractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la moraie, ou Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui Â»
Article 1 4 Â« La jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention doit Ã©tre assurÃ©e sans distinction aucune, fondÃ©e notamment sur le sexe, la race, la couleur, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques ou toutes autres oplnions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance Ã une minoritÃ© nationale, la fortune, la naissance ou toute autre situation . n La Commission, ayant procÃ©dÃ© Ã un examen prÃ©liminaire de l'argumentation des parties concernant cette partie de la requÃªte, estime qu'elle soulÃ¨ve d'importantes questions relatives Ã l'interprÃ©tation et Ã l'application de la Convention, notamment des articles citÃ©s ci-dessus Les problÃ©mes qui se posent sur le terrain de l'article 8, en particulier de son paragraphe 2, et ceux qui relÃ©vent de l'article 14 combinÃ© avec l'article 8 sont Ã©troitement liÃ©s et demandent Ã Ã¨tre examinÃ©s ensemble Icf RequÃ©te NÂ° 7215/75 c/Royaume-Uni, DÃ©cision du 5 octobre 1977' . Cette partie de la requÃ¨te ne peut donc Ã¨tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme nlanifestement nlal fondÃ©e . Aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© ne pouvant Ã©tre retenu, cette partie de la requÃ¨te doit donc Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable et faire l'objet d'un examen au fon d 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galemeni de l'existence, dans le droit coutumier d'Irlande du Nord, des dÃ©lits de conspiration en vue de corrompre la morale publique et de commettre un outrage Ã la pudeur . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue que ces iniractions ont, en Irlande du Nord, une portÃ©e potentiellement plus large qu'en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles en ce qui concerne les attitudes homosexuelles . Il soutient que toute dÃ©marche en vue d'obtenir une rÃ©forme du droit relatif Ã l'homosexualitÃ© devient ainsi potentiellement illÃ©gale, que l'association explicite d'homosexuels en groupes, clubs ou sociÃ©tÃ©s peut Ã©tre poursuivie et que les organismes de conseils, de rencontres et autres, qui s'adressent aux homosexuels ont une situation juridique peu sÃ¹re . Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, le rapport entre ces dÃ©lits et la prÃ©sente requÃ©te n'est pas clair et les activitÃ©s mentionnÃ©es dans les textes de rÃ©fÃ©rence nationaux que cite le requÃ©rant"ne concernent pas l'article 8, paragraphe 1 . ' Voir p . 36 . " Shaw v . Director ol Public Prosecutions 119611 2 AII . E .R . 446 : Knuller Sari v . Director of Public Prosecutions 119721 2 All E .R . M .
- 144 -
La Commission note que les seuls articles de la Convention invoquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant en l'occurrence sont l'article 8, paragraphe 1, dans la mesure oÃ¹ il garantit le droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e, et l'article 14, combinÃ© avec le prÃ©cÃ©dent . Toutefois, le requÃ©rant n'a pas montrÃ© comment l'existence de ces dÃ©lits, qui semblent par nature viser les actes commis en public, peut avoir affectÃ© sa vie privÃ©e . La Commission ne discerne donc, Ã cet Ã©gard, aucune apparence de violation des dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es . Cependant, compte tenu des arguments du requÃ©rant sur la portÃ©e des infractions, telles qu'elles sont dÃ©finies, la Commission a examinÃ© ex officio si cette partie de la requÃªte pouvait impliquer une violation du droit Ã la libertÃ© d'expression, garanti par l'article 10, ou du droit Ã la libertÃ© d'association, garanti par l'article 11 . La Commission remarque tout d'abord, sur un plan gÃ©nÃ©ral, que le requÃ©rant ne s'appuie sur aucun texte faisant autoritÃ© lorsqu'il prÃ©tend que la portÃ©e de ces infractions est plus large en Irlande du Nord, du fail du droit relatif Ã l'homosexualitÃ© qui y est en vigueur, qu'en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles . L'affaire Knuller, Ã laquelle se rÃ©fÃ©re le requÃ©rant, semble contredire cette allÃ©gation : il s'agissait en effet dans .cette affaire d'accusations de conspiration en vue de corrompre la moralitÃ© publique et de commettre un outrage Ã la pudeur en raison d'annonces parues en Angleterre pour inviter des hommes Ã des activitÃ©s homosexuelles . La Chambre des Lords a estimÃ© Ã la majoritÃ© que, bien que les actes homosexuels en privÃ© entre hommes adultes ne soient plus des infractions pÃ©nales en vertu de la loi de 1967 relative aux dÃ©lits sexuels, un jury pouvait considÃ©rer comme une tentative de corruption le fait d'aider ou d'encourager des personnes Ã participer Ã de tels actes . De mÃªme, personne ne semble avoir prÃ©tendu que la lÃ©galitÃ© des actes mentionnÃ©s dans les annonces enlevait Ã ces derniÃ©res le caractÃ©re d'un outrage Ã la pudeur . La Commission ne trouve donc aucune raison de penser, d'aprÃ©s les donnÃ©es qui lui ont Ã©tÃ© fournies, que l'argument du requÃ©rant soit fondÃ© . LaCommission ne trouve, non plus, aucune raison de penser que la portÃ©e donnÃ©e aux infractions susvisÃ©es aurait pour effet de rendre illÃ©gale une action tendant Ã faire rÃ©former les lois relatives Ã l'homosexualitÃ©, et restreindre ainsi la libertÃ© d'expression du requÃ©rant . En outre, alors que, selon les argumenis du requÃ©rant, Â« l'association explicite Â» d'homosexuels en groupes, clubs ou sociÃ©tÃ©s pourrait Ãªtre illÃ©gale et que les organismes de conseils, de rencontres et autres ont une situation juridique peu sÃ»re, la Commission estime que les Ã©lÃ©ments fournis ne montrent pas que les infractions susvisÃ©es auraient une portÃ©e telle que le seul fait qu'elles soient prÃ©vues en droit pourrait restreindre l'exercice de la libertÃ© d'association du requÃ©rant d'une maniÃ©re contraire Ã l'article 11 . Il en rÃ©sulte, de l'avis de la Commission, que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ptre considÃ©rÃ©e comme irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Conventio n
- 145 -
Dans sa requÃ©te, le requÃ©rant fait la dÃ©claration suivante quant 3 rÃ©paration qu'il sollicite :
Ã
la
Â« Le requÃ©rant demande l'examen par la Commtssion de la plainte relatlve Ã© la violation passÃ©e et prÃ©sente de ses droits, les dÃ©marches nÃ©cessaires pour obtenir du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur qu'iI mette fin 2 ces violations ; enfin, une indemnisation du prÃ©judice souffert Â» Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur demande Ã la Commission de dÃ©clarer, sur ce point, la requÃ©te irrecevable comme incompatible avec la Convention, au motif que la Commission n'est pas habilitÃ©e Ã accorder une telle rÃ©paratlo n
La Commission se bornera Ã observer que la Convention ne lui confÃ©re pas le pouvoir d'ordonner Ã un gouvernement de mettre fin Ã une violation allÃ©guÃ©e par un requÃ©rant, pas plus que le pouvoir d'accorder une rÃ©paration . NÃ©anmoins, tout requÃ©rant peut spÃ©cifier dans sa requÃªte Ã la Commission la nature de la rÃ©paration qu'il cherche Ã obtenir en intentant une procÃ©dure en vertu de la Convention . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission rappelle l'article 38, paragraphe 1 dl de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur aux termes duquel toute requÃªte formulÃ©e en vertu de l'article 25 de la Convention doit indiquer Â« autant que possible, l'objet de la demande . . Â» Par ces niotifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE RECEVABLE, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ©, les griefs du requÃ©ram concernant les lois en vigueur en Irlande du Nord, aux termes desquelles sont interdites les activitÃ©s homosexuelles entre hommes (y compris la tentaGve) ; DÃCLARE IRRECEVABLES les griefs du requÃ©rant concernant les infractions de conspiration en vue de corrompre la morale publique et de conspiration en vue de commettre un outrage Ã la pudeur .
- 146 -

| X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

Synthèse

Analyses

Parties

Origine de la décision

Source