CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 décembre 1992

.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. 20079/92                       by L.K.                       against Czechoslovakia           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 December 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  G. SPERDUTI                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    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 31 March 1992 by L.K. against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 June 1992 under file No. 20079/92;         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, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1953, is a journalist residing in Prague.   He works for the "Rudé Právo" newspaper.         The Communist Party formerly owned the newspaper "Rudé Právo" which was published by the publishing house Florenc.   Mr. P. was director of this publishing house.         In May 1990 the Federal Parliament passed a law according to which property and fortune of the former Communist Party passed to the State, though publishing rights were not transferred to the State.         The journalists refused to work for a newspaper run by a political party and therefore founded the Borgis company.   Mr. P. became president of the Borgis company and chief editor of the newspaper.         In December 1990 Mr. P. concluded a contract with Florenc for the rent of its printing press.   Further contracts with other companies concerned the distribution of the newspaper and the rent of localities.         As from 1 January 1991 the Borgis company acquired the publishing rights for the daily newspaper "Levicovy list Rudé Právo" ("Rudé Právo daily newspaper of the Left").   Nevertheless, for a transitional period until 30 June 1991 the Communist Party kept its rights to publish the newspaper.    On 23 April 1991 the newspaper changed its name to "Nezávislé noviny Rudé Právo" ("Independent newspaper Rudé Právo"). On 8 July 1991 the newspaper again changed its name to "Rudé Právo".         On 26 June 1991 Mr. B., the then director of Florenc, requested the municipal arbitrator (státní arbitráz) to state that the contracts concluded with Mr. P. were not valid.   He also claimed compensation amounting to 24 million Crowns.   On 16 October 1991 the municipal arbitrator found that the contracts were not valid, but rejected B.'s claims for compensation.   Both the publishing house Florenc and Mr. P. filed appeals, though apparently no decision has yet been taken in this respect.         On 11 March 1992 the Regional Public Prosecutor of Prague I (vysetrovatel) introduced criminal proceedings against Mr. P. inter alia on account of fraud.   In particular, it was alleged that Mr. P., by concluding various contracts in December 1990 with Florenc, had contravened the law enacted by the Federal Parliament in May 1990. Mr. P.'s appeal against the decision of 11 March 1992 was dismissed by the Public Prosecutor on 22 March 1992.         Meanwhile, on 16 March 1992, Mr. P. was arrested by the police and remanded in custody.   The deputy chief editor was also arrested, and the rooms of the newspaper were searched.   Mr. P. was released on 19 March 1992 on bail.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant, who also claims to be representing 42 other journalists, complains of the intimidation of the opposition press by certain civil servants.         The applicant complains in particular under Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention of the arrest and detention of Mr. P.   Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings instituted against Mr. P.   Under Article 10 of the Convention the applicant complains that these occurrences breached the freedom of the press.   He also raises complaints under Article 7 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Articles 5, 6 and 7 (Art. 5, 6, 7) of the Convention of the arrest and detention of, and the criminal proceedings instituted against, Mr. P., the chief editor of the Rudé Právo newspaper.   Under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention he complains of a breach of the freedom of the press.   2.     Insofar as the applicant complains under Articles 5, 6 and 7 (Art. 5, 6, 7) of the Convention about events relating to Mr. P., the Commission recalls that under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention it may only receive an application from a person, non- governmental organisation or group of individuals where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.         In the present case the applicant is complaining, in his own name, that another person, Mr. P., has been arrested and remanded in custody, and subsequently has faced criminal proceedings.   The applicant has not claimed that he himself has been arrested or remanded in custody, or that criminal proceedings have been instituted against himself.         The applicant cannot, therefore, claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention.   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 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.     The applicant also complains under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention of a breach of the freedom of the press.         Irrespective of whether the applicant has in this respect complied with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission notes that the applicant has not shown that his own freedom of expression has been interfered with.   It follows that the remainder of the application is 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 Commission             President of the Commission        (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)