CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 décembre 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 16574/90 by F. and K. against France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 December 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 19 April 1990 by F. and K. against France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom and registered on 9 May 1990 under file No. 16574/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:           The first applicant, born in 1953, was a citizen of the United States of America.   He now claims to be stateless.   He is resident in Berlin.   His first application, No. 15788/89, was declared inadmissible on 7 Februrary 1990.   The second applicant is a German national, born in 1947, who also lives in Berlin.           The applicants were frequent contributors to Bürger-Radio and other radio stations in Berlin.   They claim that they were able to broadcast on a variety of topics.           On 4 September 1989 the Cable Communications Office (Anstalt für Kabelkommunikation) confirmed to Mrs.   Sabine Hermann and Mr.   Hans Ferenz, the directors of Bürger-Radio, that it would no longer be allowed to broadcast from 30 November 1989.           On 11 September 1989 the Berlin Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) rejected the first applicant's application for the decision concerning Bürger-Radio's continued broadcasting to be further suspended on the ground that he had no locus standi.           On 16 November 1989 the Berlin Administrative Appeals Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) rejected the first applicant's appeal (Beschwerde) summarily.           On 8 January 1990 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) notified the first applicant that it could not hear his complaint as it lacked jurisdiction with respect to official acts by Land Berlin.           The applicants complain, inter alia, that there has been a violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention in that public trust is being abused by the State authorities permitting the air waves to become a forum solely for the propagation of national state and collectivist ideology as well as for commercial exploitation.   They also allege violations of Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 1 and of Articles 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 63 of the Convention.           To the extent that the applicants complain about the actions of France and the United Kingdom, the Commission recalls that complaint may only be made of matters within the jurisdiction of contracting parties.   The Commission has examined the question whether the administration of Bürger-Radio as complained of in the present application could entail the responsibility of France or the United Kingdom under the Convention.   This examination has disclosed no grounds on which such responsibility could arise (cf.   No. 6231/73, Dec. 28.5.75, D.R. 2 p. 72).           It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.           To the extent that the applicants complain about the actions of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission finds no indication, on the facts of the case, that the effect of the closure of Bürger-Radio on the applicants could be regarded as arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise contrary to the requirements of objectivity and impartiality.   In these circumstances, the Commission considers that no issue is raised under Article 10 of the Convention.           The Commission further finds no appearance of a violation of any of the other provisions invoked by the applicants with regard to the Federal Republic of Germany.           It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.             For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission                  President of the Commission              (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)