CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 20 mai 1996

.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. 25952/94                       by J. D.                       against Hungary        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 20 May 1996, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL              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 4 April 1994 by J. D. against Hungary and registered on 15 December 1994 under file No. 25952/94;        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        On 22 November 1992 J.D., of Albanian origin, was born out of wedlock in Szeged, Hungary. The application has been lodged on his behalf by Mr. Davies, who was appointed by J.D.'s natural mother on 15 February 1994.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by Mr. Davies, may be summarised as follows.        On 8 December 1992 J.D.'s natural mother recorded a declaration with a Hungarian notary public according to which she irrevocably agreed to her son's adoption by Mr. and Mrs. S., a couple of US nationality, allowing him to emigrate to the United States. The adoption was organised by Mr. Davies. Subsequently J.D.'s natural mother left Hungary. J.D. was provisionally taken care of by foster parents paid for by the prospective adoptive parents. On 20 July 1993 the United States' Embassy issued an immigrant visa for J.D. In October 1993 J.D. was handed over to his adoptive parents in the United States.   COMPLAINTS        Mr. Davies complains on behalf of J.D. that the Hungarian authorities, allegedly due to formalities, delayed his departure from Hungary until October 1993, and that he could not challenge this delay. He invokes Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   THE LAW        The present application relates to several complaints in respect of the Hungarian authorities' alleged failure to authorise J.D. to leave Hungary without delay. The application has been brought on behalf of J.D., a minor, by Mr. Davies, who was appointed by the applicant's natural mother on 15 February 1994. The Commission notes that in December 1992 J.D.'s natural mother agreed to her son's adoption by adoptive parents, with whom J.D. has been living since October 1993.        The Commission recalls that parents having neither the custody nor the care of their children, and are not otherwise authorised to represent them, cannot introduce an application on their behalf (cf. No. 8045/77, Dec. 4.5.79, D.R. 16 p. 105).   Consequently, in February 1994 J.D.'s natural mother was no longer in a position to appoint Mr. Davies as her son's representative for the purposes of a petition under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that Mr. Davies is not competent to bring the present complaints on behalf of J.D.        It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission        (H.C. KRÜGER)                              (S. TRECHSEL)