Lexploria

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

Menu

AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

AZZOPARDI v. MALTA

LEXI