SCHÖPFER v. SWITZERLAND

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1953, is a lawyer

practising in Lucerne, Switzerland.

Particular circumstances of the case

The applicant was acting as counsel for S. who was remanded in

custody in the District Prison of Hochdorf in the Canton of Lucerne on

suspicion of having committed various financial offences.

On 6 November 1992 S.'s wife informed the applicant that the

District Registrars of the Hochdorf District Office had urged her to

find another lawyer for her husband if the latter wanted to be released

from detention.

In view thereof and of other alleged occurrences the applicant

held a press conference in his office in Lucerne on 9 November 1992.

On 10 November 1992 the newspaper "Luzerner Neueste Nachrichten"

(LNN) printed the following article on p. 25:

<Translation>

Former member of parliament of the Christian Popular Party (CVP)

demands investigation against the Hochdorf District Office.

"I shall no longer let myself be fooled by these gentlemen"

The former CVP member of parliament levels serious charges

against the Hochdorf District Office.

"I've had enough", curses (the applicant), "of being fooled

by the gentlemen of the Hochdorf District Office. I have no

other means left than to go to the press." The former CVP member

of parliament was prompted to take the unusual step of

approaching the public during pending proceedings on account of

a case entrusted to him as a lawyer in mid-October. At that time

his client had already been remanded in custody for a month at

Hochdorf District Prison.

Detained without a warrant of arrest

The 20 year old father of a daughter of one and a half

years was arrested on 18 August together with his brother on

account of stealing a car radio and clothes; he was released

after having admitted the offences. When on 15 September he

wanted to inquire at the Lucerne Cantonal Police about his

brother's situation, he was again immediately arrested.

"When I inquired at the Hochdorf District Office about the

warrant of arrest", (the applicant) remembers, "I was told that

the warrant had been issued orally"; (the applicant) regards this

as a clear breach of the cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure

which states in Section 82: "The arrest is undertaken by the

police duly authorised by a written warrant of arrest."

When faced with this reproach, the Hochdorf District

Officer H.B. remains buttoned up: "With me nobody is arrested

without a written warrant of arrest. I cannot say more while the

proceedings are pending." On the other hand, (the applicant) no

longer intends to remain silent; he has been asked by the

accused's wife to represent him: "His wife came to me because the

officially appointed lawyer had failed to contact his client even

though he had already been remanded in custody during six weeks."

(The applicant) immediately contacted the officially

appointed counsel who then withdrew from the case. However, the

Hochdorf District Office did not want (the applicant) as new

counsel and refused his request on 29 October on the ground that

there were no reasons to disengage the previous lawyer. He was,

however, free privately to represent his client.

(The applicant) as a ground for detention?

(The applicant) finally had enough when the accused's wife

last Friday informed him that the two District Registrars Th.B.

and B.B. had advised her not to continue collaboration with him.

"They told me", the wife confirms to the LNN, "that my husband

would not be released from detention as long as (the applicant)

was his defence lawyer." Th.B. will have nothing to do with

that: "That's ridiculous. I never said anything like that. B.B.

can confirm that. He was present when I spoke with the wife."

(The applicant) is not satisfied by that: "I demand that

the District Officer and the District Registrars immediately step

down and that a neutral Commission from another Canton carefully

examine the matter."

<Original>

Ehemaliger CVP-Grossrat verlangt Untersuchung gegen

Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf.

"Ich lasse mich von diesen Herren nicht länger für dumm

verkaufen"

Der ehemalige CVP-Grossrat erhebt schwere Vorwürfe gegen das

Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf.

"Ich habe es satt", wettert (der Beschwerdeführer), "mich von den

Herren vom Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf für dumm verkaufen zu

lassen. Deshalb bleibt mir nur noch der Weg über die Presse."

Bewogen zu dem ungewöhnlichen Schritt, während eines laufenden

Verfahrens an die Öffentlichkeit zu gelangen, hat den ehemaligen

CVP-Grossrat ein Fall, mit dem er als Anwalt Mitte Oktober

betraut wurde. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sass sein Klient bereits seit

einem Monat im Hochdorfer Untersuchungsgefängnis.

Ohne Haftbefehl festgenommen

Der 20jährige Vater einer anderthalbjährigen Tochter war am

18. August zusammen mit seinem Bruder wegen Diebstahls von

Autoradios und Kleidern verhaftet und nach einem Geständnis

wieder freigelassen worden. Als er sich am 15. September auf der

Kantonspolizei Luzern nach dem Befinden seines Bruders erkundigen

wollte, wurde er unverzüglich wieder festgenommen.

"Als ich auf dem Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf nach dem

Haftbefehl fragte, wurde mir mitgeteilt, dieser sei ihm mündlich

eröffnet worden", erinnert sich (der Beschwerdeführer), der das

Vorgehen der Polizei als eine klare Verletzung der kantonalen

Strafprozessordnung betrachtet, die im Paragraph 82 vorschreibt:

"Die Verhaftung wird von der Polizei vollzogen, die sich durch

einen schriftlichen Haftbefehl auszuweisen hat."

Auf diesen Vorwurf angesprochen, gibt sich Hochdorfs

Amtsstatthalter H.B. zugeknöpft: "Bei mir wird niemand ohne

schriftlichen Haftbefehl festgenommen. Mehr kann ich zu einem

laufenden Verfahren nicht sagen." Nicht länger schweigen will

dagegen (der Beschwerdeführer), der von der Frau des

Angeschuldigten gebeten wurde, ihren Mann zu verteidigen: "Die

Frau kam zu mir, weil der amtliche Verteidiger noch keinen

Kontakt mit seinem Klienten aufgenommen hatte, obwohl er seit

sechs Wochen in Untersuchungshaft sass."

(Der Beschwerdeführer) setzte sich umgehend mit dem

amtlichen Verteidiger in Verbindung, der ihm den Fall abtrat.

Das Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf wollte dagegen (den

Beschwerdeführer) nicht als neuen amtlichen Verteidiger und

lehnte sein Gesuch am 29. Oktober mit der Begründung ab, es

bestände keine Veranlassung, den bisherigen Rechtsanwalt von

seinem Amt zu entbinden. Es stünde ihm jedoch frei, den Klienten

privat zu verteidigen.

(Der Beschwerdeführer) als Haftgrund?

Der Kragen platzte (dem Beschwerdeführer), als ihm die Frau

des Angeklagten am letzten Freitag mitteilte, die beiden

Amtsschreiber Th.B. und B.B. hätten ihr von einer weiteren

Zusammenarbeit mit ihm abgeraten. "Sie erklärten mir",

bestätigt die Frau gegenüber der LNN, "dass mein Mann nicht aus

der Haft entlassen werde, solange (der Beschwerdeführer) sein

Verteidiger sei." Davon will Th.B. allerdings nichts wissen:

"Das ist doch lächerlich. So etwas habe ich nie gesagt. Das

kann B.B. bestätigen. Er war dabei, als ich mit der Frau

gesprochen habe."

(Der Beschwerdeführer) will den Vorfall nicht auf sich

beruhen lassen: "Ich verlange, dass unverzüglich der

Amtsstatthalter und die Schreiber in Ausstand treten und eine

neutrale ausserkantonale Kommission die Angelegenheit unter die

Lupe nimmt."

Inserted into this text was the further article:

<Translation>

"REPROACHES

It is not the first time that substantial charges are

levelled against the Hochdorf District Office. Already in

connection with the conviction of the Debt Execution Officer H.S.

of Rothenburg investigations were undertaken against District

Officer H.B. He was convicted by the Lucerne District Court and

sentenced to a fine of 400 SFr on account of a breach of official

secrets. Although the Court of Appeal also found that

objectively he had committed the offence, H.B. was acquitted."

<German>

"VORWÜRFE

Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass gegen das

Amtsstatthalteramt Hochdorf massive Vorwürfe erhoben werden.

Schon im Zusammenhang mit der Verurteilung des Rothenburger

Betreibungsbeamten H.S. wurde gegen Amtsstatthalter H.B.

ermittelt. Er wurde vom Amtsgericht Luzern wegen Verletzung des

Amtsgeheimnisses zu einer Busse von 400 Franken verurteilt.

Obwohl auch das Obergericht zum Schluss kam, der objektive

Tatbestand sei erfüllt, wurde H.B. freigesprochen."

Two photographs were included, one with the Hochdorf District

Office, the other depicting District Officer H.B. and accompanied by

the text: "with me nobody is detained without a written warrant of

arrest" ("bei mir wird niemand ohne schriftlichen Haftbefehl

festgehalten").

Another newspaper, the Luzerner Zeitung, also ran on 10 November

1992 an article on the press conference with the headline "Young man

detained without warrant of arrest? Lucerne lawyer accuses the

Hochdorf District Office of breaching the law" ("Junger Mann ohne

Haftbefehl verhaftet? Luzerner Anwalt wirft Amtsstatthalteramt

Hochdorf Rechtsverletzungen vor").

On 10 November 1992 the Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) of the Canton of Lucerne wrote a reply according

to which the accused person concerned had been arrested in accordance

with the law, and the applicant had failed to file an appeal against

the refusal to appoint him as official defence counsel. This reply was

published in the press on 11 November 1992.

On 13 November 1992 the Luzerner Zeitung summarised a press

communique issued by the applicant in reply to the Public Prosecutor's

statement. According to the applicant, S.'s detention was in breach

of inter alia Convention rights. The applicant also cited the letter

of another lawyer St. according to which "the situation in Hochdorf is

far from satisfactory ... It is a catastrophe that the organs of

justice know about the circumstances in Hochdorf and also covertly

discuss them" ("die Zustände in Hochdorf (sind) alles andere als

erfreulich ... Katastrophal ist ja auch, dass man bei der Justiz die

Verhältnisse kennt und hinter vorgehaltener Hand auch darüber

diskutiert").

According to an article in the Luzerner Zeitung of 19 November

1992 the Supervisory Board (Aufsichtsbehörde) of the Bar of the Canton

of Lucerne had written to the applicant, asking him for explanations;

the applicant had replied inter alia by stating that he had acted

lawfully and in the interests of his client.

Meanwhile, the applicant filed a request for S.'s release from

detention on remand. On 16 November 1992 the Hochdorf District Officer

dismissed the request.

The applicant filed an appeal which the Court of Appeal

(Obergericht) of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed on 30 November 1992.

The Court of Appeal noted, however, that S., after his arrest, had

incorrectly been brought before the District Registrar instead of the

District Officer who alone qualified as a judge or other officer

authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of

Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. For this reason, the Court of

Appeal ordered the decision to be brought to the attention of the

Public Prosecutor's Office as the District Officer's supervisory

authority.

On 21 December 1992 the Supervisory Board of the Bar instituted

disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

On 15 March 1993 the Lawyers' Supervisory Board imposed, with

reference to Section 13 of the Statute of the Bar (Anwaltsgesetz; see

below, Relevant domestic law) of the Canton of Lucerne a fine of

500 SFr on the applicant on account of professional misconduct

(Verletzung von Berufs- und Standespflichten).

In its decision the Supervisory Board found in particular that

the applicant had failed first to raise the charges at issue before the

Public Prosecutor's Office or the Court of Appeal. He had thus not

demonstrated the discretion called for in pending proceedings; he had

also demonstrated that in fact he wanted to obtain publicity. By not

filing an appeal he had also implied that the appeal bodies in the

Canton of Lucerne were not trustworthy. On the whole the applicant's

conduct called in question the reputation of the judiciary in the

Canton of Lucerne.

The applicant's public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde)

was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 21 April 1994.

In its decision, the Court considered that the interference with

the applicant's right to freedom of expression was based on Section 12

of the Statute of the Bar of the Canton of Lucerne (see below, Relevant

domestic law). It also considered that lawyers had substantial freedom

(weitgehende Freiheit) to criticise the judiciary as long as the

criticism was duly expressed in the procedural forms. On the other

hand, lawyers had to refrain from conduct which could damage the

judiciary. When examining whether the interference occurred in the

public interest, it had to be considered how clear the alleged breaches

of the law were; whether pending proceedings could be influenced;

whether there was the possibility of introducing legal remedies; and

in what manner the charges were raised. The decision continues:

<Translation>

"It is true that one of the complaints - the applicant having

contested a possible practice of the District Office - was

subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of

Lucerne. Contrary to the applicant's submissions, the

Supervisory Board considered this in the contested decision.

Apart from these reasons charges raised in public were not well-

founded; they could also have influenced pending proceedings. ...

Furthermore the Supervisory Board reproached the applicant for

having chosen the wrong tone in respect of a number of complaints

at the press conference. This was also explained in detail. It

further alleged that the applicant had not stated the truth when

he said that he had no other means left than going to the press.

Yet at that time he had not even attempted to obtain a reply by

filing a regular remedy with the statutory appeal organs. He

could have been expected to proceed in this manner, and

subsequently he indeed proceeded along these lines. In respect

of all these points of view the applicant does not reply with any

convincing arguments ..."

<German>

"Es trifft zwar zu, dass eine der entsprechenden Rügen, mit

welcher der Beschwerdeführer eine möglicherweise gängige Praxis

des Amtsstatthalteramts angefochten hatte, später vom Obergericht

des Kantons Luzern geschützt wurde. Entgegen dem Vorbringen des

Beschwerdeführers hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dies im angefochtenen

Entscheid jedoch berücksichtigt. Abgesehen davon erwiesen sich

die öffentlich erhobenen Vorwürfe, die im übrigen geeignet waren,

ein hängiges Verfahren zu beeinflussen, nicht als berechtigt. ...

Weiter hat die Aufsichtsbehörde dem Beschwerdeführer angelastet,

dass er sich an der Presseorientierung bei mehreren seiner

Formulierungen im Ton vergriffen habe. Sie hat dies im einzelnen

auch begründet. Sie hat dem Beschwerdeführer ferner insofern

Wahrheitswidrigkeit vorgeworfen, als er die Anrufung der Presse

dieser gegenüber als letzten Weg bezeichnet hatte, obwohl er im

damaligen Zeitpunkt noch nicht einmal versucht hatte, sich auf

dem ordentlichen Weg bei den gesetzlichen Rechtsmittelinstanzen

Gehör zu verschaffen. Dieser Weg, den er nachträglich ja auch

beschritten hat, war ihm ohne weiteres zumutbar. Gegen alle diese

Gesichtspunkte bringt der Beschwerdeführer keine überzeugenden

Argumente vor."

The Court found that the measure had occurred in the public

interest and that the sanction was proportionate in that it was at the

lower end of the scale of fines.

Relevant domestic law

According to Section 12 para. 1 of the Statute of the Bar

(Anwaltsgesetz) of the Canton of Lucerne, the Supervisory Board

(Aufsichtsbehörde) may impose disciplinary sanctions on lawyers in

cases of a breach of professional ethics. Section 13 provides that the

lawyer concerned may be sanctioned with a fine of up to 5,000 SFr or

with suspension from his professional activities.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, with reference to the Convention

organs' case-law, that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him

breaches his right under Article 10 of the Convention to freedom of

information. He submits that he merely informed the press that no

written warrant of arrest had been issued; and that the Hochdorf

District Office had put S.'s wife under pressure. The decision of the

Court of Appeal of the Canton of Lucerne of 30 November 1992 and the

letter of the lawyer St. both confirm that his allegations were largely

correct. The applicant submits that he remained objective in his

statements.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 11 August 1994 and registered

on 11 October 1994.

On 29 November 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

20 February 1996. The applicant replied on 30 April 1996.