AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 15928/89
                      by J.K.
                      against the Netherlands


      The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 13 May 1992, the following members being present:

             MM.  S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H. G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
             Mrs. G. H. THUNE
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  L. LOUCAIDES
                  J.-C. GEUS
                  A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

             Mr.  K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber


      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 6 December 1989
by J.K. against the Netherlands and registered on 20 December 1989
under file No. 15928/89;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1964 and is residing
in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.  She is represented before the
Commission by Mr. H.G. Kersting, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

      On 9 October 1986, on the platform of the Amsterdam Central
Station where a special "Olympic" train carrying an official delegation
was bound to leave for Lausanne, the applicant, without any permission
thereto from the Railway authorities, started to unfold a banner with
the words "No Olympics" in order to protest against the candidature of
Amsterdam for the 1992 Olympic Games.  At that point in time the
applicant was, together with others, removed from this platform by
Railway Police officers assisted by Municipal Police Officers. The
applicant was not prosecuted.

      In 1988 the applicant started civil proceedings before the
District Court (Kantongerecht) of Amsterdam against the Mayor of
Amsterdam and the Dutch Railway Company.  She requested the Court to
award her 1.992 Dutch guilders for non-material damages for the alleged
unlawful police action and to declare Article 5 paras. 1 and 3 (f) of
the General Transport Regulations (Algemeen Reglement Vervoer-Stbl.
1966, 566), which prohibits, inter alia, the display of objects at a
railway station without prior permission by the railway authorities in
order to prevent disturbance of the order, safety or the good running
of operations, as invalid for being contrary to, inter alia, Articles
9 and 10 of the Convention. The General Transport Regulations are based
on the Passenger Transport Act (Wet Personenvervoer).

      The District Court rejected the applicant's requests on 30 June
1989.  The District Court considered, inter alia, that the mere fact
that the applicant was denied the opportunity to express her opinion
at a specific place on a specific point in time did not constitute such
an infringement of her right to freedom of expression that it would
create damage to be valued in terms of money.

      Against this decision no appeal was possible.


COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention
that by forcibly removing her from the station platform, whereas she
did not disturb public order, the authorities did not limit her rights
under these provisions but completely deprived her of these rights.

THE LAW

      The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10) of
the Convention that the police, by forcibly removing her from the
station platform, completely deprived her of her rights under these
provisions.

      Article 9 para. 1 (Art. 9-1) provides:

      "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
      and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
      religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in
      community with others and in public or in private, to
      manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
      practice and observance."

      In this case, the Commission notes that the applicant wished to
protest against the candidature of Amsterdam for the 1992 Olympic Games
by, inter alia, unfolding a banner with the words "No Olympics".

      The Commission recalls that Article 9 (Art. 9) primarily protects
the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds, i.e. the area
which is sometimes called the forum internum.  In addition, it protects
acts which are intimately linked to these attitudes such as acts of
worship or devotion which are aspects of the practice of a religion or
belief in a generally recognised form (cf. No. 11308/84, Dec. 13.3.86,
D.R. 46 p. 200).

      The Commission does not find that the applicant, although her aim
may be of an idealistic nature, was manifesting a belief ("conviction")
within the meaning of Article 9 para. 1 (Art. 9-1) of the Convention.
The applicant's removal from the platform by the police did, therefore,
not constitute an infringement of her rights under Article 9 para. 1
(Art. 9-1) of the Convention.

      It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

      The applicant also relied on Article 10 (Art. 10) of the
Convention, which provides:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This
      right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive
      and impart information and ideas without interference by
      public authority and regardless of frontiers [...].

      2.   The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with
      it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
      formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
      prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
      society, in the interests of national security, territorial
      integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder
      or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
      protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
      preventing the disclosure of information received in
      confidence, or for maintaining the authority and
      impartiality of the judiciary."

      The Commission considers that the facts complained of by the
applicant must be considered as an interference with the exercise of
her right to freedom of expression.

      The question then arises whether this interference was justified
under the terms of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2).

      The Commission notes that the applicant had no prior permission
to demonstrate on the departure platform as required by the General
Transport Regulations. The Commission observes that the aim of
requiring such a permission is the prevention of a disturbance of the
order, safety or good running of operations in railway stations. The
Commission further notes that the applicant was not prosecuted for
having demonstrated and that the applicant does not complain that she
has been prevented from protesting at another place.

      The Commission considers the requirement of a prior permission
as referred to in the General Transport Regulations to be a formality,
condition or restriction as prescribed by law and which can be regarded
as necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder.

      The Commission is, therefore, of the opinion that the
interference with the applicant's rights under Article 10 para. 1
(Art. 10-1) of the Convention was justified under para. 2 of this
provision.

      It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.


Secretary to the Second Chamber       President of the Second Chamber




        (K. ROGGE)                           (S. TRECHSEL)