The applicants were several individuals and two trades unions who complained that a ministerial order made under legislation relating to broadcasting infringed their rights under Article 10 of the Convention.
Held: The Commission rejected the application as inadmissible in so far as brought by the two trade unions, saying that the measure complained of did not affect the rights of the applicant unions themselves: the ministerial order did not refer to the exercise of any of their rights. The fact alone that the trade unions considered themselves as guardians of the collective interests of their members did not suffice to make them victims within the meaning of Article 25. It followed that in so far as the application was brought by the two trade unions, it was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected.
Judges:
CA Norgaard P
Citations:
(1991) 70 DR 262, [1991] ECHR 77, 15404/89
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Adams and Others v Lord Advocate IHCS 31-Jul-2002
(Opinion) The applicants challenged the introduction of restrictions of hunting by foxes, arguing that the law would infringe their human rights.
Held: The Act was not infringing. Fox hunting as such was not a private activity protected by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Media, Employment
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.179877
