CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 39146/02 by Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych KUMOK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6   May   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 September 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych Kumok, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Melitopol. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. V. Opryshko, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska, from the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is the editor-in-chief of a daily newspaper Melitopolskiye vedomosti . On Friday 29 March 2002, a special issue of the newspaper was published in a local printing house. The issue was dedicated to the latest events in Melitopol relating to the imminent parliamentary and local elections. On 30 March 2002 the Regional Electoral Committee applied to the Melitopol City Court, seeking prohibition of the distribution of this special issue of the newspaper Melitopolskiye vedomosti . On the same day the court granted the application. The court stated that under the Elections Law, election campaigning must cease at 24.00 on the last Friday prior to the elections. The court found that three articles by journalists R and S in the above issue of the newspaper contained campaigning materials and, therefore, banned this issue from distribution. The judgment became final and binding immediately after its adoption. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the prohibition on the distribution of the issue of the newspaper violated Article 10 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court notes that parties did not make any objections as to admissibility of the present application. The Court recalls however that the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the Convention itself, in particular by Article 32, and not by the parties’ submissions in a particular case, the mere absence of a plea of incompatibility cannot extend that jurisdiction (see, mutatis mutandis , Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no.   59532/00, §   65, ECHR 2006 ‑ ...) The Court notes that in the instant case the parties to the domestic proceedings were the newspaper and the electoral commission. The applicant, even though he participated in the proceedings on behalf of newspaper, was not a party to those proceedings and the contested decision concerned the newspaper rather than the applicant as a private individual. The application, however, was lodged by the applicant on his own behalf and not on behalf of the newspaper. Therefore, he cannot claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see Obukhova v. Russia (dec.), no. 34736/03, 1 December 2005). It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the application. For these reasons, the Court by a majority Declares the application inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President