AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 16574/90
by F. and K.
against France, the Federal Republic
of Germany and the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 3 December 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
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 19 April 1990
by F. and K. against France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the
United Kingdom and registered on 9 May 1990 under file No. 16574/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
The first applicant, born in 1953, was a citizen of the United
States of America. He now claims to be stateless. He is resident in
Berlin. His first application, No. 15788/89, was declared inadmissible
on 7 Februrary 1990. The second applicant is a German national, born
in 1947, who also lives in Berlin.
The applicants were frequent contributors to Bürger-Radio and
other radio stations in Berlin. They claim that they were able to
broadcast on a variety of topics.
On 4 September 1989 the Cable Communications Office (Anstalt
für Kabelkommunikation) confirmed to Mrs. Sabine Hermann and Mr. Hans
Ferenz, the directors of Bürger-Radio, that it would no longer be
allowed to broadcast from 30 November 1989.
On 11 September 1989 the Berlin Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgericht) rejected the first applicant's application for
the decision concerning Bürger-Radio's continued broadcasting to be
further suspended on the ground that he had no locus standi.
On 16 November 1989 the Berlin Administrative Appeals Court
(Oberverwaltungsgericht) rejected the first applicant's appeal
(Beschwerde) summarily.
On 8 January 1990 the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) notified the first applicant that it could
not hear his complaint as it lacked jurisdiction with respect to
official acts by Land Berlin.
The applicants complain, inter alia, that there has been a
violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention in that public trust
is being abused by the State authorities permitting the air waves to
become a forum solely for the propagation of national state and
collectivist ideology as well as for commercial exploitation. They
also allege violations of Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 1 and of
Articles 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 63 of the Convention.
To the extent that the applicants complain about the actions
of France and the United Kingdom, the Commission recalls that
complaint may only be made of matters within the jurisdiction of
contracting parties. The Commission has examined the question whether
the administration of Bürger-Radio as complained of in the present
application could entail the responsibility of France or the United
Kingdom under the Convention. This examination has disclosed no
grounds on which such responsibility could arise (cf. No. 6231/73,
Dec. 28.5.75, D.R. 2 p. 72).
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 of the Convention.
To the extent that the applicants complain about the actions
of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission finds no
indication, on the facts of the case, that the effect of the closure of
Bürger-Radio on the applicants could be regarded as arbitrary,
discriminatory or otherwise contrary to the requirements of
objectivity and impartiality. In these circumstances, the Commission
considers that no issue is raised under Article 10 of the Convention.
The Commission further finds no appearance of a violation of
any of the other provisions invoked by the applicants with regard to
the Federal Republic of Germany.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy