13
KLASS AND OTHERS v. GERMANY JUGDMENT
the preliminary objection in the "Belgian Linguistic" case, Series A no. 5, p.
18; the Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 20,
para. 41; and the judgment of 18 January 1978 in the case of Ireland v. the
United Kingdom, Series A no. 25, p. 63, para. 157).
The present case concerns, inter alia, the interpretation of the notion of
"victim" within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention, this
being a matter already raised before the Commission. The Court therefore
affirms its jurisdiction to examine the issue arising under that Article (art.
25).
33. While Article 24 (art. 24) allows each Contracting State to refer to
the Commission "any alleged breach" of the Convention by another
Contracting State, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of
individuals must, in order to be able to lodge a petition in pursuance of
Article 25 (art. 25), claim "to be the victim of a violation ... of the rights set
forth in (the) Convention". Thus, in contrast to the position under Article 24
(art. 24) - where, subject to the other conditions laid down, the general
interest attaching to the observance of the Convention renders admissible an
inter-State application - Article 25 (art. 25) requires that an individual
applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he
alleges (see the judgment of 18 January 1978 in the case of Ireland v. the
United Kingdom, Series A no. 25, pp. 90-91, paras. 239 and 240). Article
25 (art. 25) does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the
interpretation of the Convention; it does not permit individuals to complain
against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the
Convention. In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to
claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the
Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his
detriment. Nevertheless, as both the Government and the Commission
pointed out, a law may by itself violate the rights of an individual if the
individual is directly affected by the law in the absence of any specific
measure of implementation. In this connection, the Court recalls that, in two
previous cases originating in applications lodged in pursuance of Article 25
(art. 25), it has itself been faced with legislation having such an effect: in the
"Belgian Linguistic" case and the case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and
Pedersen, the Court was called on to examine the compatibility with the
Convention and Protocol No. 1 of certain legislation relating to education
(see the judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, and the judgment of 7
December 1976, Series A no. 23, especially pp. 22-23, para. 48).
34. Article 25 (art. 25), which governs the access by individuals to the
Commission, is one of the keystones in the machinery for the enforcement
of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. This machinery
involves, for an individual who considers himself to have been prejudiced
by some action claimed to be in breach of the Convention, the possibility of
bringing the alleged violation before the Commission provided the other