CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 mars 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 73 March 2005 Fairfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 24790/04 Decision 8.3.2005 [Section IV] Article 34 Victim Victim status of daughter and executors complaining, two years after his death, about the arrest and fining of a person: inadmissible   The applicant, the daughter and the executors of the estate of the late Harry Hammond (an evangelical Christian), complained about his arrest for breach of the peace and his conviction and fine for having been preaching in a public place with a sign including the words “Stop Homosexuality”. Mr Hammond had refused to take down the sign and leave the area after an angry crowd had gathered and a disturbance had occurred. On his death in 2002, during the Administrative Court proceedings, his daughter and executors had obtained permission to pursue his case. The Divisional Court found no breaches of Articles 9 or 10 on account of his arrest and conviction. Before the Court the applicants complained under Articles 9 and 10 that the arrest and conviction of Mr Hammond had infringed his freedom of religion and freedom of expression. He had been prevented from teaching his religion by preaching and had been penalised for the content of his message and for expressing his opinion, although he had not used offensive or degrading language or incited the use of violence. The Court noted that Harry Hammond had died in 2002, whereas the application had been lodged in 2004 by his daughter and the executors of his estate. The executors relied on the fact that the Divisional Court had granted them standing to pursue the appeal after Mr. Hammond’s death as evidencing their standing and interest and his daughter relied on the approach in Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999‑VI, where the Court had held that the applicant’s widow had a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling that her husband’s conviction constituted a breach of his right to freedom of expression. Article   34 requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he alleges; it does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention or permit individuals to complain about a law simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention. The same applies to events or decisions which are alleged to infringe the Convention. The existence of a victim, that is to say, an individual who is personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right, is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, although this criterion is not to be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the proceedings ( Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003‑IX). The present case therefore had to be distinguished from Dalban which had been introduced by the applicant himself and only continued by his widow after his subsequent death. Similarly, although in Karner the Court had held that a case could be continued after the death of an applicant, and even in the absence of heirs wishing to continue, where the issues transcended the interests of the applicant and raised an important question of public interest relevant to human rights standards in Contracting States, that applicant had also died after the introduction of the application before the Convention organs. While it is also true that individuals, who are the next-of-kin of persons who have died in circumstances giving rise to issues under Article   2 of the Convention, may apply as applicants in their own right, this is a particular situation governed by the nature of the violation alleged and considerations of the effective implementation of one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention system. In the present case the applicants did not have the requisite standing under Article   34: incompatible ratione personae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes