CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2008

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 108 May 2008 Meltex Ltd v. Armenia - 37780/02 Decision 27.5.2008 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-3 Ratione temporis Alleged violation based on an administrative decision taken before the entry into force of the Convention, whereas the final judicial decision was taken thereafter: inadmissible   The applicant, a television company, was granted a five-year broadcasting licence in 1997 by the Ministry of Communication. A Law on Television and Radio was passed in 2000 introducing a new licensing procedure and entrusting the granting of licences to the National Television and Radio Commission (“the NTRC”). The applicant’s licence was renewed by the Commission until licensing competitions took place. In 2002 several competitions were announced, including one for the frequency which had until then been used by the applicant. The applicant and two other companies submitted bids. On 2   April 2002 the NTRC announced that another company had won the call for tender. Thereafter, the electricity supply to the applicant company’s transmitter was cut off and its broadcasts ceased. The applicant unsuccessfully sought to annul that decision before the courts. The final decision was given by the Court of Cassation on 14   June 2002. Subsequently, the applicant submitted bids for other frequency competitions, but on each occasion was refused a licence. Inadmissible : The Convention had entered into force in respect of Armenia on 26   April 2002. The NTRC’s decision to grant a broadcasting licence to a company other than the applicant company, thereby rejecting the latter’s bid for a broadcasting a licence, had been taken on 2   April 2002. The applicant company had instituted court proceedings seeking an order annulling that decision. The final decision had been taken by the Court of Cassation on 14   June 2002, that is, after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Armenia. However, the applicant company’s bid for a licence had been refused by the NTRC’s decision, not in the course of the subsequent court proceedings. The NTRC was the sole authority vested with power to examine the applicant company’s bid for a broadcasting licence and to decide whether to grant or refuse such a licence. The domestic courts could review the legality of that decision but not examine the competitive bids and decide which company was to be granted a licence. The alleged interference with the applicant company’s rights guaranteed by Article   10 had therefore taken place on the date of the NTRC’s decision, namely 2   April 2002, which preceded the date of the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Armenia. The fact that the final judicial decision had been taken after that date did not bring the alleged interference within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. Furthermore, that decision concerned only the entitlement to conduct broadcasting on band   37 and had not amounted to a general prohibition on the applicant company’s right to broadcast as such. Nor had the applicant company been prevented from submitting tenders for other available bands. The fact that the NTRC had rejected all its bids within a certain period did not imply that the decision of 2   April 2002 had given rise to a continuing situation. All the NTRC’s decisions in respect of the subsequent calls for tenders had been adopted on identifiable dates and were the object of a separate application before the Court. The NTRC’s decision of 2   April 2002 had been an instantaneous act which, despite its ensuing effects, had not in itself given rise to any possible continuing situation: incompatible ratione temporis.   © 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