1. First, the Commission stresses that the Communes are governmental oranisations and so cannot rely on the Convention as only natural persons, groups (of natural persons) and non-governmental organisations (individual application) or states (in the case of an interstate complaint) can submit a complaint.
2. Second, the Commission does not treat the applicants as representatives of groups of natural persons, namely the inhabitants of the communes. ‘The Commission has next examined the question whether the communes concerned could nevertheless be regarded as “persons” or “groups of individuals” in the sense of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. It finds that such a construction would not be consistent with the clear distinction made in this provision between “non-governmental organisations” on the one hand and “persons” or “groups of individuals” on the other.’
3. Some of the applicants are the councils of the communes, who claim that their right to correspondence (in their public function) is hampered. The Commission, however, stresses that the ‘rights under this provision in respect of correspondence cannot be invoked in the exercise of public functions. It follows that this complaint, insofar as it relates to the correspondence of the councillors, is again incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.’ This means that when public servants or other persons act on behalf of the government or execute a public task, they cannot rely on their rights under the Convention. This is a very strict interpretation of the Convention, which has later been loosened.