VAN EMPEL/DE JONG authorities. Consequently, it may be subm itted that in effect, this provision is onstructed as ensuring that public authorities, also when they act under the guise of private party capacity, should fully comply with their public law duties and respect the specific public law constraints imposed upon them. I An illustrative case in this regard relates to the refusal by a municipality, acting in its capacity as the owner of a theatre, to conclude a contract for a public "hypnosis-show"in that theatre. As it was established that the refusal was based on the finding by the municipality that hypnosis as a public show would not be in accordance with the Christan fath va lues which in that municipa lity were generally shared by the popultion, the Hoge Raad(Netherlands Supreme Court)ruled that this amounted to a ban on the basis of the content of the show and that it was therefore contrary to the fundamental right to the free expression of opinion, as guaranteed in Article 7 of the Constitution (HR 26 April 1996, AB 1996, no 372, m.o. G D. Rasti rastelli") Again, a case where a Congresshall refused to let a room to an association which was deemed to sympathise with South African"Apartheid "gave rise to the issue as to a ossible infringement of the freedom of assembly, as guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. The Court found that it was relevant to the case that 30% of the share capital of the Congresshall was owned by the Municipality of The Hague, lich appointed 50% of the members of the Supervisory Board. In that light the Court expressed doubts as to whether the legal relationship between the Congresshall and the assocation concerned could be qualified as "horizontal. It went on to say If one wishes to confirm this, then one has to admit in any case a horizontal effect of the constitutional fundamental right".On that basis an injunction was issued to waive the tortuous refusal President Rechtbank(District Court) The hague, 9 June 1987,AB1987,580) Another noteworthy judgment in this regard is that of the Court of Appeals Leeuwarden of 1983, in which the latter found that public authority may make use of private law(contractual)means beyond what would be allowed under its public law powers, provided it would not, had it acted on a public law basis, have acted in olation of a provision of a higher rank, such as in casu Article 10, par 2, of the uropean Convention of Human Rights(ECHR)(Court of Appeals Leeuwarden, 23 March1983,AB1983,336) 1. 1. 2 Private parties as such As mentioned above it is generally understood that Article 3: 14 Civil Code is not addressed to private parties as such. As far as the latter are concerned, the issue has to be addressed on a different basis. therefore The issue as to what is the proper legal basis for the effects of constitutional and international noms, more particular fundamental human rights, on relations between private parties will be addressed in Section IV below. At this stage it seems adequate for the purpose of relating the state of affa irs in practice, to refer to this as the issue of horizontal effects offundamental human rights See JC.E. Ackermans-Wijn, 'Art. 3: 14 NBW en de overheid, in: WCL van der Grinten (red )Ondernemingen nieuw burgerlijk recht, Zwolle 1991, p. 57.VAN EMPEL/DE JONG 2 authorities. Consequently, it may be submitted that in effect, this provision is constructed as ensuring that public authorities, also when they act under the guise of private party capacity, should fully comply with their public law duties and respect the specific public law constraints imposed upon them.1 An illustrative case in this regard relates to the refusal by a municipality, acting in its capacity as the owner of a theatre, to conclude a contract for a public “hypnosis-show” in that theatre. As it was established that the refusal was based on the finding by the municipality that “hypnosis as a public show would not be in accordance with the Christian faith values which in that municipality were generally shared by the population”, the Hoge Raad (Netherlands Supreme Court) ruled that this amounted to a ban on the basis of the content of the show and that it was therefore contrary to the fundamental right to the free expression of opinion, as guaranteed in Article 7 of the Constitution. (HR 26 April 1996, AB 1996, no. 372, m.o.v. Th.G.D. Rasti Rostelli”) Again, a case where a Congresshall refused to let a room to an association which was deemed to sympathise with South African “Apartheid” gave rise to the issue as to a possible infringement of the freedom of assembly, as guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. The Court found that it was relevant to the case that 30% of the share capital of the Congresshall was owned by the Municipality of The Hague, which appointed 50% of the members of the Supervisory Board. In that light the Court expressed doubts as to whether the legal relationship between the Congresshall and the association concerned could be qualified as “horizontal”. It went on to say: “If one wishes to confirm this, then one has to admit in any case a horizontal effect of the constitutional fundamental right”. On that basis an injunction was issued to waive the tortuous refusal (President Rechtbank (District Court) The Hague, 9 June 1987, AB 1987, 580). Another noteworthy judgment in this regard is that of the Court of Appeals Leeuwarden of 1983, in which the latter found that public authority may make use of private law (contractual) means beyond what would be allowed under its public law powers, provided it would not, had it acted on a public law basis, have acted in violation of a provision of a higher rank, such as in casu Article 10, para 2, of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (Court of Appeals Leeuwarden, 23 March 1983, AB 1983, 336). 1.1.2 Private parties as such As mentioned above it is generally understood that Article 3: 14 Civil Code is not addressed to private parties as such. As far as the latter are concerned, the issue has to be addressed on a different basis, therefore. The issue as to what is the proper legal basis for the effects of constitutional and international norms, more particula r fundamental human rights, on relations between private parties will be addressed in Section IV below. At this stage it seems adequate for the purpose of relating the state of affairs in practice, to refer to this as the issue of horizontal effects of fundamental human rights. 1. See J.C.E. Ackermans-Wijn, ‘Art. 3: 14 NBW en de overheid’, in: W.C.L. van der Grinten (red.) Onderneming en nieuw burgerlijk recht, Zwolle 1991, p. 57