CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 janvier 1998

.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. 35722/97                       by Mario AZZOPARDI                       against Malta          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 15 January 1998, the following members being present:              MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                  N. BRATZA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 5 November 1996 by Mario AZZOPARDI against Malta and registered on 23 April 1997 under file No. 35722/97;        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 is a Maltese citizen born in 1949. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, of Cospicua. The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.        The applicant has, for almost 30 years, regularly participated on a professional basis in the two annual rowing competitions, organised by the Government of Malta. The applicant has achieved the reputation of being an exceptional oarsman, who   could participate in four or five events during each annual race.        On 20 August 1993 the rules of the annual races were changed and published in the Malta Government Gazette. According to the new rules, each oarsman could not participate in more than three events in each annual race.        The applicant started proceedings before the First Hall Civil Court claiming that the new rules infringed his right to respect for his private life and that they were discriminatory towards him. On 6 December 1994 the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and declared that the new rules had no legal effect.        On appeal by the Government of Malta the Constitutional Court of Malta found on 31 May 1996 that the applicant`s rights were in no way infringed and revoked the previous decision. The Constitutional Court stated that First Hall Civil Court had failed to establish a fundamental distinction between the right of an individual to have his private life respected and the altogether public nature of the provisions on the organisation of the sporting competition. The court stated that even if, in light of the seriousness and the professionality of the applicant`s participation in races, the change in rules did give rise to an interference with the applicant`s private life, the interference would be justified in the interests of the general public and to encourage the participation of more people in the activity.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the right to enjoy his private life has been violated by the new rules limiting his participation in the annual sporting event to only three races. He alleges that he is the only oarsman whose whole life is dedicated to this sport. He had for years been one of the best and his life was centred solely on these two national rowing events. The image of being a dedicated sportsman and often a winner also influenced his relationships with people around him.        The applicant also alleges discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention claiming that the new rules affected him more than any other oarsmen as there was no other person who had the stamina to keep on competing for almost thirty years of his lifetime.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that his right to enjoy his private life under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention has been infringed as he was deprived of the possibility to participate in more than three races.        Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as follows:        "1.    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and      family life, his home and his correspondence.        2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with      the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with      the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests      of national security, public safety or the economic well-being      of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the      protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the      rights and freedoms of others."        The Commission first has to determine whether the new rules on participating in races affected the applicant`s private life. In this regard the Commission recalls its case-law under which Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention cannot be interpreted as applying only to direct measures taken by the authorities against the privacy of an individual. It may also cover indirect intrusions which are unavoidable consequences of measures not at all directed against private individuals (No. 9310/81, Rayner v. the United Kingdom, Dec. 16.7.86, D.R. 47 pp. 5,12).        In the present case the general rules governing the participation in the sporting competition have changed, to the alleged detriment of the applicant. The Commission accepts that the new rules may well have had an impact on the applicant`s hopes and ambitions, as they prevented him from participating in more than three races in each annual event. However, this does not mean that every action taken by the State and affecting an individual can be qualified as an interference with the right to respect for "private" life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.        The Commission notes that the competition is a public event which is organised according to the rules determined by the competent sports authorities. It is the rules of such an event which determine the participants and not the participants who determine the rules. They are not unchangeable and inevitably affect the individual's interests in one way or another. Moreover, the Commission notes that the applicant was able to continue with his training schedule and participate in races and there is no indications which would lead to a conclusion that the new rules failed to respect the applicant`s right to his private life.        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant also claims that, in comparison with the other participants, the new rules affected him more than any other oarsman and so infringed his rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.        Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides as follows:        "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."        In view of its above findings and in the absence of any indication that the applicant has been singled out and subjected to differential treatment on the ground of his status as a long standing competitor, the Commission finds no discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,          DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber