Search
document

Document text Analytics

K. v. CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Doc ref: 20079/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1445

Document date: December 10, 1992

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

K. v. CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Doc ref: 20079/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1445

Document date: December 10, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20079/92

by L.K.

against Czechoslovakia

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

10 December 1992, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

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 31 March 1992 by

L.K. against Czechoslovakia and registered on 3 June 1992 under file

No. 20079/92;

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, a citizen of the CSFR born in 1953, is a

journalist residing in Prague. He works for the "Rudé Právo"

newspaper.

The Communist Party formerly owned the newspaper "Rudé Právo"

which was published by the publishing house Florenc. Mr. P. was

director of this publishing house.

In May 1990 the Federal Parliament passed a law according to

which property and fortune of the former Communist Party passed to the

State, though publishing rights were not transferred to the State.

The journalists refused to work for a newspaper run by a

political party and therefore founded the Borgis company. Mr. P.

became president of the Borgis company and chief editor of the

newspaper.

In December 1990 Mr. P. concluded a contract with Florenc for the

rent of its printing press. Further contracts with other companies

concerned the distribution of the newspaper and the rent of localities.

As from 1 January 1991 the Borgis company acquired the publishing

rights for the daily newspaper "Levicovy list Rudé Právo" ("Rudé Právo

daily newspaper of the Left"). Nevertheless, for a transitional period

until 30 June 1991 the Communist Party kept its rights to publish the

newspaper. On 23 April 1991 the newspaper changed its name to

"Nezávislé noviny Rudé Právo" ("Independent newspaper Rudé Právo").

On 8 July 1991 the newspaper again changed its name to "Rudé Právo".

On 26 June 1991 Mr. B., the then director of Florenc, requested

the municipal arbitrator (státní arbitráz) to state that the contracts

concluded with Mr. P. were not valid. He also claimed compensation

amounting to 24 million Crowns. On 16 October 1991 the municipal

arbitrator found that the contracts were not valid, but rejected B.'s

claims for compensation. Both the publishing house Florenc and Mr. P.

filed appeals, though apparently no decision has yet been taken in this

respect.

On 11 March 1992 the Regional Public Prosecutor of Prague I

(vysetrovatel) introduced criminal proceedings against Mr. P. inter

alia on account of fraud. In particular, it was alleged that Mr. P.,

by concluding various contracts in December 1990 with Florenc, had

contravened the law enacted by the Federal Parliament in May 1990.

Mr. P.'s appeal against the decision of 11 March 1992 was dismissed by

the Public Prosecutor on 22 March 1992.

Meanwhile, on 16 March 1992, Mr. P. was arrested by the police

and remanded in custody. The deputy chief editor was also arrested,

and the rooms of the newspaper were searched. Mr. P. was released on

19 March 1992 on bail.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant, who also claims to be representing 42 other

journalists, complains of the intimidation of the opposition press by

certain civil servants.

The applicant complains in particular under Article 5 para. 1 (c)

of the Convention of the arrest and detention of Mr. P. Under Article

6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of the unfairness

of the proceedings instituted against Mr. P. Under Article 10 of the

Convention the applicant complains that these occurrences breached the

freedom of the press. He also raises complaints under Article 7 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Articles 5, 6 and 7 (Art. 5, 6, 7)

of the Convention of the arrest and detention of, and the criminal

proceedings instituted against, Mr. P., the chief editor of the Rudé

Právo newspaper. Under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention he

complains of a breach of the freedom of the press.

2. Insofar as the applicant complains under Articles 5, 6 and 7

(Art. 5, 6, 7) of the Convention about events relating to Mr. P., the

Commission recalls that under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the

Convention it may only receive an application from a person, non-

governmental organisation or group of individuals where the applicant

alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and

freedoms set out in the Convention.

In the present case the applicant is complaining, in his own

name, that another person, Mr. P., has been arrested and remanded in

custody, and subsequently has faced criminal proceedings. The

applicant has not claimed that he himself has been arrested or remanded

in custody, or that criminal proceedings have been instituted against

himself.

The applicant cannot, therefore, claim to be a victim of a

violation of the Convention. 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 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3. The applicant also complains under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention of a breach of the freedom of the press.

Irrespective of whether the applicant has in this respect

complied with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission

notes that the applicant has not shown that his own freedom of

expression has been interfered with. It follows that the remainder of

the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article

27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) 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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant