II. On Article 14 (art. 14)

69. The applicants also claim to be victims of a violation of Article 10, taken in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+10), which provides:

"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, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

They maintain that such violation arose by reason of:

- the fact that allegedly similar press publications were not subjected to restraints similar to those imposed on the applicants' publications or activities;

- the difference between the rules applied in Parliament in relation to comment on pending litigation and the rules of contempt of court applied to the press.

In the view of the Government and the Commission, there was in this case no breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 10 (art. 14+10).

7O. According to the Court's established case-law, Article 14 (art. 14) safeguards individuals, or groups of individuals, placed in comparable situations, from all discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the other normative provisions of the Convention and Protocols (see the above-mentioned judgment of 23 July 1968 in the "Belgian Linguistic" case, p. 34, para. 10; National Union of Belgian Police judgment of 27 October 1975, Series A no. 19, p. 19, para. 44).

71. The fact that no steps were taken against other newspapers, for example the Daily Mail, is not sufficient evidence that the injunction granted against Times Newspapers Ltd. constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 (art. 14).

72. With respect to the rules applicable in Parliament (see paragraph 20 above), the Court notes that the members of the Court of Appeal mentioned the undesirability, and perhaps even dangers, of there being a substantial difference, as regards the treatment of matters sub judice, between the practice of Parliament, whose proceedings are published, and the practice of the courts. Nevertheless, the Court is of the opinion that the press and parliamentarians cannot be considered to be "placed in comparable situations" since their respective "duties and responsibilities" are essentially different. Furthermore, the Parliamentary debate of 29 November 1972 (see paragraph 13 above) did not cover exactly the same ground as the proposed Sunday Times article.

73. There has thus been no violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 10 (art. 14+10).

III. On Article 18 (art. 18)

74. Before the Commission, the applicants had additionally raised a claim based on Article 18 (art. 18) which provides:

"The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed."

However, they did not maintain this claim before the Court: in their memorial of 10 February 1978, the accepted the Commission's opinion that there had been no breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 10 (art. 18+10).

Neither the Government nor the Commission adverted to this matter during the oral hearings, although the latter did refer to it in its request bringing the case before the Court.

75. The Court notes the position taken by the applicants and, in the circumstances of the case, does not consider that it is necessary for it to examine this question.