Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATIONS Nos. 13914/88, 15041/89,

15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90

Informationsverein Lentia,

Jörg Haider,

Aktionsgemeinschaft Offenes Radio (AGORA),

Wilhelm Weber and

Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H.

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 September 1992)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The applications

(paras. 2 - 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 8 - 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 23 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 28 - 47). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 28 - 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

a. Informationsverein Lentia

(Application No. 13914/88)

(paras. 28 - 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

b. Mr. J. Haider (Application No. 15041/89)

(para. 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

c. AGORA (Application No. 15717/89)

(paras. 38 - 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

d. Mr. W. Weber (Application No. 15779/89)

(para. 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

e. Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H.

(Application No. 17207/90)

(para. 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 42 - 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

a. Telecommunications Act (1949)

(para. 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

b. Private Telecommunications Installations

Ordinance (1961)

(para. 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

c. Constitutional Broadcasting Act (1974)

(para. 44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

d. Broadcasting Corporation Act (1974)

(paras. 45 - 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 48 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B. Points at issue

(para. 49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

C. Article 10 of the Convention

(paras. 50 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

a. Interference with the applicants' rights

under Article 10 para. 1

(paras. 52 - 63) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

b. Relevance of Article 10, para. 1, third

sentence

(paras. 64 - 66) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

c. Justification of this interference under

Article 10 para. 2

(paras. 67 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

aa) Was the interference "prescribed by law"

(Article 10 para. 2)?

(paras. 67 - 71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

bb) Aim of the interference

(paras. 72 - 74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

cc) Necessity of the interference

(paras. 75 - 89). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Conclusion

(paras. 88 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

D. Article 14 of the Convention taken together with

Article 10

(paras. 90 - 95) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Conclusion

(paras. 94 - 95) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

E. Recapitulation

(paras. 96 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION of Sir Basil HALL . . . . . . . . . . . .17

CONCURRING OPINION of Mr. L. LOUCAIDES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

APPENDIX II: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . .22

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The applications

2. The first applicant, Informationsverein Lentia, is a private

association established at Linz in Upper Austria. Before the

Commission it is represented by Mr. B. Binder, a lawyer practising in

Linz.

3. The second applicant, Mr. J. Haider, is an Austrian citizen

residing at Klagenfurt in Carinthia. He is the Chairman of the

Austrian Liberal Party (FPÖ) and Deputy Governor of Carinthia. He is

represented by Messrs. D. Böhmdorfer and W. Themmer, lawyers practising

in Vienna.

4. The third applicant, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Offenes Radio (AGORA),

is a private association established at Eisenkappel in Carinthia. It

is represented by Mr. Th. Höhne, a lawyer practising in Vienna.

5. The fourth applicant, Mr. W. Weber, is an Austrian citizen born

in 1941 who resides at St. Andrä in Lavanttal in Carinthia. He is also

represented by Messrs. D. Böhmdorfer and W. Themmer.

6. The fifth applicant, Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H., is a limited

liability company established and registered in Salzburg. It is

represented by Mr. Wilfried Haslauer, a lawyer practising in Salzburg.

7. The case concerns the applicants' complaints under Article 10 of

the Convention that the Austrian broadcasting system does not envisage

any licensing procedure for private radio or television stations.

Under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 10 the

first applicant further complains that it is being treated differently

from other institutions employing internal cable television systems.

Also under Article 14 taken together with Article 10 the third

applicant complains that the restrictions in the broadcasting system

constitute a discrimination against the Slovene minority in Carinthia.

B. The proceedings

8. Application No. 13914/88 was introduced on 16 April 1987 and

registered on 3 June 1988.

9. Application No. 15041/89 was introduced on 15 May 1989 and

registered on 23 May 1989.

10. Application No. 15717/89 was introduced on 27 September 1989 and

registered on 30 October 1989.

11. Application No. 15779/89 was introduced on 18 September 1989 and

registered on 20 November 1989.

12. On 13 July 1990 the Commission joined the proceedings in

Applications Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89 and gave notice of

these three applications and of Application No. 13914/88 to the

respondent Government who were invited to submit observations in

writing on their admissibility and merits before 31 October 1990.

13. After having being granted an extension of the time-limit, the

Government's observations on Application No. 13914/88 were submitted

on 14 November, those on the other three applications on

15 November 1990.

14. The applicants were invited to submit observations in reply

before 31 January 1991. The third applicant submitted observations on

29 January 1991. The second and fourth applicants submitted their

observations, after having been granted an extension of the time-limit,

on 27 February 1991. The first applicant, after having been reminded

by the Commission's Secretariat that no observations had been received

within the time-limit, eventually submitted observations on

15 May 1991.

15. In the meantime Application No. 17207/90 was introduced on

20 August 1990 and registered on 26 September 1990.

16. On 12 July 1991 the Commission also gave notice of this

application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit

observations in writing on its admissibility and merits before

1 October 1991.

17. The Government submitted their observations on this application

on 2 October 1991 and the applicant replied on 8 November 1991.

18. In the meantime the Commission decided on 3 September 1991 to

invite the parties in Applications Nos. 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89

and 15779/89 to an oral hearing on the admissibility and merits. On

6 December 1991 the Commission included Application No. 17207/90 in the

hearing.

19. On 14 January 1992 the Commission decided to join all five cases.

20. The hearing took place on 15 January 1992. At the hearing, the

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. H. Türk, who was

assisted by Mrs. S. Bernegger, of the Federal Chancellery, and

Mr. R. Fischer-See, of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation as

advisers. The applicants were represented as follows: the first

applicant by Mr. G. Lehner, a lawyer practising in Linz; the second

applicant, who was present himself, by Mr. D. Böhmdorfer, assisted by

Mrs. S. Riess, Mr. W. Meischberger and Mr. P. Westenthaler as advisers;

the third applicant, whose President, Mrs. B. Busch, and a member of

the Governing Board, Mr. V. Wakounig, were present, by Mr. Th. Höhne;

the fourth applicant by Mr. D. Böhmdorfer assisted by Mr. W. Dillenz,

Adviser; the fifth applicant by Mr. W. Haslauer. Mr. H. Tretter of the

University of Vienna acted as adviser for the second, third, fourth and

fifth applicants.

21. On 15 January 1992 the Commission declared the applications

admissible with regard to the applicants' complaints under Article 10

of the Convention, and under Article 14 of the Convention taken

together with Article 10.

22. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself

at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the case. Consultations with the parties took place

between 19 February and 20 May 1992. The Commission now finds that

there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.

C. The present Report

23. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J. C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C. L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M. P. PELLONPÄÄ

24. The text of this Report was adopted on 9 September 1992 and is

now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,

in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

25. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the

Convention, is:

i) to establish the facts, and

ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a

breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the

Convention.

26. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the applications as Appendix II.

27. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

a. Informationsverein Lentia (Application No. 13914/88)

28. The applicant association was founded by the joint owners and

inhabitants in Linz of a residential development comprising some

450 apartments and 30 shops. In order to improve communication between

the members, the applicant sought to establish an internal cable

television system, the programme of which was to be limited to

questions of common concern relating to the members' property rights.

29. On 9 June 1978 the applicant applied to the Linz Regional

Direction of Post and Telecommunications (Post- und

Telegraphendirektion) for a licence under the Telecommunications Act

(Fernmeldegesetz). As no decision was taken within the time-limit of

six months stipulated in Section 73 of the Code of Administrative

Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), the applicant

requested a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolution) to the General

Direction of Post and Telecommunications of the Federal Ministry of

Transport (Generaldirektion für die Post- und Telegraphenverwaltung

des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr).

30. On 23 November 1979 the Ministry rejected the request. The

decision stated that the Federal Constitutional Act for Securing the

Independence of Broadcasting (Bundesverfassungsgesetz über die

Sicherung der Unabhängigkeit des Rundfunks, hereafter referred to as

Constitutional Broadcasting Act) had reserved to the federal

legislation the regulation of broadcasting and its organisation.

Broadcasting could therefore only take place on the basis of a special

federal law. Such a federal law only existed for the public Austrian

Broadcasting Corporation (Österreichischer Rundfunk, ORF) according to

the Federal Law on the Functions and the Organisation of the Austrian

Broadcasting Corporation (Bundesgesetz über die Aufgaben und die

Einrichtung des Österreichischen Rundfunks). It followed that there

was no legal basis for the applicant's request to establish a private

broadcasting station for television.

31. With regard to Article 10 of the Convention, the Ministry

considered that the Austrian legislature had made use of the

authorisation under the third sentence of para. 1 of this provision to

require the licensing of broadcasting enterprises by envisaging the

enactment of special legislation for the operation of any broadcasting

station.

32. The applicant's constitutional complaint against this decision

was rejected by the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on

16 December 1983. The Court considered with reference to Article 10

of the Convention that an administrative decision violated the right

to operate a broadcasting station if it was taken without a legal

basis, if the applicable law was unconstitutional, or if it was applied

in an arbitrary manner. The contested decision had not interpreted the

Constitutional Broadcasting Act arbitrarily. The aim of the

Constitutional Broadcasting Act was to introduce a licensing

requirement within the meaning of Article 10, para. 1, last sentence.

This aim could not be achieved if, in the absence of legislation,

everybody was entitled freely to broadcast. So far, a law had only

been enacted for the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation. It followed

"that only the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation

could operate broadcasting within the meaning of Section 1 para. 1 of

the Constitutional Broadcasting Act" ("dass Rundfunk iS des Art. I

Abs. 1 BVG-Rundfunk derzeit nur vom ORF betrieben

werden darf").

33. In the Court's opinion, the applicant's view was misconceived

that its cable television system was not to be qualified as

broadcasting because it was addressed to a limited audience.

Broadcasting included active cable broadcasting which therefore fell

within the scope of the Constitutional Law and its implementing

legislation. The persons who received the programme were not

predetermined and individualised, they were potentially all people

present in many apartments and shops and therefore constituted a

general public.

34. The Court noted that under the Telecommunications Act and the

Ordinance on Private Telecommunication Installations (Privatfernmelde-

anlagenverordnung) the telecommunications authorities were competent

to grant broadcasting licences. On the other hand, the Constitutional

Broadcasting Act did not contain express provisions on the application

of the broadcasting legislation by those authorities. In the Court's

view, the Constitutional Broadcasting Act was to be applied by all

authorities which could influence the operation of broadcasts. Thus,

the Telecommunications Act and the Ordinance on Private

Telecommunication Installations were to be read subject to the proviso

that an authorisation for the setting-up and operation of broadcasting

installations could not be granted by the authorities before a federal

law on the subject had been enacted in accordance with Article I

para. 2 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act.

35. The Constitutional Court concluded that there had been no

violation of Article 10 of the Convention nor of any other

constitutional provision. It referred the case to the Administrative

Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) as requested by the applicant

association.

36. The Administrative Court rejected the applicant's complaint on

10 September 1986. The decision confirmed the views expressed by the

Constitutional Court. It considered that the Telecommunications Act

could not be seen as a special law referred to by the Constitutional

Broadcasting Act. The authorities were required to comply with

Article 18 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution

(Bundesverfassungsgesetz) according to which all administrative acts

could be taken only on the basis of the law, and to examine in this

context whether the provisions of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act

created an obstacle for granting the authorisation requested. Neither

the Telecommunications Act nor any other legal provision granted the

applicant a right to this authorisation. Its refusal was not unlawful,

and the reasons given were neither self-contradictory nor insufficient.

b. Mr. J. Haider (Application No. 15041/89)

37. Between 1987 and 1989 the applicant had plans to establish

jointly with others a private radio station in Carinthia. However, an

examination of the legal situation in Austria revealed that the

granting of a radio licence was excluded by the Austrian legislation

as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. Thus, the plans to

establish a radio station were abandoned, and the applicant did not

take any domestic proceedings.

c. AGORA (Application No. 15717/89)

38. The applicant, a member of the Fédération européenne des radios

libres (FERL), wishes to establish a radio station in Carinthia which

would transmit a multilingual non-commercial programme financed by

listeners. A target group would be the bilingual area of Southern

Carinthia, and the programmes would be broadcast in German and Slovene.

The proponents of this radio station already operate a mobile station

on Italian territory on the basis of an Italian radio licence.

39. In 1988 the applicant applied for a licence for a private radio

station. On 19 December 1989 the Klagenfurt Regional Direction of Post

and Telecommunications rejected the application. This decision was

confirmed on 30 September 1991 by the General Direction of Post and

Telecommunications of the Federal Ministry for Public Economy and

Transport (Generaldirektion für die Post- und Telegraphenverwaltung des

Bundesministeriums für öffentliche Wirtschaft und Verkehr), and on

30 September 1991 by the Constitutional Court which thereby relied on

its earlier case-law (see above, paras. 32 et seq.).

d. Mr. W. Weber (Application No. 15779/89)

40. The applicant is the shareholder of an Italian company which

operates a private radio station in Italy transmitting broadcasts to

Austria on a commercial basis. He wishes to operate such a radio

station himself on Austrian territory. In view of the Austrian

legislation and its interpretation by the Constitutional Court the

applicant did not institute proceedings in order to apply for a radio

licence.

e. Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H. (Application No. 17207/90)

41. The applicant applied on 8 November 1988 for a licence and the

attribution of a frequency band in order to operate a private local

radio station in Salzburg. On 28 April 1989 the Linz Regional

Direction of Post and Telecommunications rejected the application. Its

decision was confirmed on 12 July 1989 by the General Direction of Post

and Telecommunications of the Federal Ministry for Public Economy and

Transport, and on 18 June 1990 by the Constitutional Court which

thereby relied on its earlier case-law (see above, paras. 32 et seq.).

B. Relevant domestic law

a. Telecommunications Act (1949)

42. According to Section 2 para. 1 of the Telecommunications Act of

1949 (Fernmeldegesetz), "the right to set up and operate

telecommunications installations falls exclusively to the Federation"

("Das Recht, Fernmeldeanlagen zu errichten und zu betreiben steht

ausschliesslich dem Bunde zu"). Section 3 envisages the authorisation

for private persons or institutions (physische oder juristische

Personen) to set up and operate broadcasting installations. Section

5 lists instances where broadcasting installations may be set up

without authorisation, for instance within the boundaries of a private

property.

b. Private Telecommunication Installations Ordinance (1961)

43. The Ordinance on Private Telecommunication Installations of 1961

(Verordnung über Privatfernmeldeanlagen) concerns all broadcasting

installations which, on the basis of the Telecommunications Act, are

subject to Federal supervision (Section 1). The Ordinance states inter

alia the conditions for the setting up and operation of private

broadcasting installations. However, according to the decisions of the

Austrian courts and administrative authorities, these provisions cannot

constitute the basis for granting licences to private applicants.

c. Constitutional Broadcasting Act (1974)

44. Section 1 para. 1 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act of 1974

(Bundesverfassungsgesetz über die Sicherung der Unabhängigkeit des

Rundfunks) gives a definition of broadcasting which includes the

transmission of word, sound and images (Wort, Ton und Bild). Paras. 2

and 3 provide:

"(2) More detailed provisions for broadcasting, and its

organisation, are to be determined by Federal Act. Such a

Federal Act must in particular contain special provisions

ensuring the objectivity and impartiality of reporting, the

diversity of opinions, balanced programmes and the independence

of persons and organs charged with the duties stated in para. 1.

(3) Broadcasting according to para. 1 is a public service."

"(2) Die näheren Bestimmungen für den Rundfunk und seine

Organisation sind bundesgesetzlich festzulegen. Ein solches

Bundesgesetz hat insbesondere Bestimmungen zu enthalten, die die

Objektivität und Unparteilichkeit der Berichterstattung, die

Berücksichtigung der Meinungsvielfalt, die Ausgewogenheit der

Programme sowie die Unabhängigkeit der Personen und Organe, die

mit der Besorgung der im Abs. 1 genannten Aufgaben betraut sind,

gewährleisten.

(3) Rundfunk gemäss Abs. 1 ist eine öffentliche Aufgabe."

d. Broadcasting Corporation Act (1974)

45. The Federal Law on the Functions and the Organisation of the

Austrian Broadcasting Corporation of 1974 (Bundesgesetz über die

Aufgaben und die Einrichtung des Österreichischen Rundfunks) sets up

the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation as an economic unit with legal

personality entrusted with the function of supplying the public with

broadcasts.

46. The broadcasts must comply with certain criteria. Apart from

those mentioned in the Constitutional Broadcasting Act (see above,

para. 44), they include, for instance, with regard to the number and

quality of programmes, an even and steady supply to the whole

population in Austria, according to current technical standards of

reception in so far as economically feasible, with at least two

television and three radio programmes (Section 3 para. 1), one of the

latter being a regional programme which takes into consideration the

particular interests of the Provinces (Section 3 para. 2). The

programmes must inform the public comprehensively of all important

political, economic, cultural and sports events by objective selection

and dissemination of news and reports and must transmit and convey

comments, opinions and critical statements of importance for the public

having due regard to the plurality of views represented in public

discussions (Section 2 para. 1, sub-para. 1). Broadcasting time must

be provided to political parties represented in Parliament as well as

to interest groups (Section 5 para. 1).

47. The Broadcasting Corporation Act furthermore institutes a

"Commission for Safeguarding Observance of the Broadcasting Corporation

Act" ("Kommission zur Wahrung des Rundfunkgesetzes"). It exercises a

certain control over the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, in so far

as the matter does not come within the jurisdiction of a court of law

or an administrative authority. In particular, it decides on alleged

violations of the Broadcasting Corporation Act. The Commission is

composed of 17 members appointed by the Federal President upon

proposals of the Federal Government for a period of four years.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

48. The following complaints were declared admissible:

- under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the applicants'

complaints that the Austrian broadcasting system does not envisage any

licensing procedure for private broadcasting stations;

- under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with

Article 10 (Art. 10) the first applicant's complaint that it is being

treated differently from other institutions employing internal cable

television systems;

- under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with

Article 10 (Art. 10) the third applicant's complaint that the

restrictions in the broadcasting system constitute a discrimination

against the Slovene minority in Carinthia.

B. Points at issue

49. Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:

- whether, with regard to all applicants, there has been a

violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention;

- whether, with regard to the first and third applicants, there has

been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken

together with Article 10 (Art. 10).

C. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention

50. The applicants complain that contrary to Article 10 (Art. 10) of

the Convention they are unable to obtain licences in Austria for

private radio stations or, in the case of the first applicant, for a

private cable television system. They observe that under Austrian

constitutional law the operation of broadcasting stations is not as

such inadmissible, but since implementing legislation has been enacted

only in respect of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation there exists

in fact a monopoly of this Corporation. In the applicants' view the

legislature's failure to enact provisions which would allow others than

the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation access to the audiovisual media

is incompatible with Article 10 (Art. 10) which guarantees freedom of

expression to "everyone".

51. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention states:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right

shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart

information and ideas without interference by public authority

and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent

States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television

or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of

others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in

confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

the judiciary."

a. Interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10

para. 1 (Art. 10-1)

52. The first question is whether there has been an interference with

the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the

Convention.

53. The present case concerns the refusal by the Austrian authorities

to grant broadcasting licences to the applicants. It relates in

principle to the freedom enshrined in Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1)

"to ... impart information and ideas without interference by public

authority".

54. However, according to the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1

(Art. 10-1) of the Convention, Article 10 does "not prevent States from

requiring the licensing of broadcasting ... enterprises". The third

sentence refers to "broadcasting" rather than the reception of

broadcasting (see Autronic v. Switzerland, Comm. Report 9.3.89,

Series A no.178, p. 38, para. 61). By envisaging a licensing system,

the third sentence appears to limit the protection afforded by the

rights in the first and second sentence of Article 10 para. 1

(Art. 10-1).

55. According to the decisions of the Austrian courts and

administrative authorities, the licensing system in Austria excludes

any broadcasting other than by the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation.

On the basis thereof the applicants' requests for licences were

refused. An issue arises therefore whether in the light of the third

sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) there was an interference

with the applicants' rights under the first and second sentence of

Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.

56. The applicants submit that according to the case-law of the

Convention organs the last sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1)

does not cover a broadcasting monopoly (see Eur. Court H.R., Groppera

judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 23 et seq., paras. 57

et seq.; Autronic judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 24,

paras. 50 et seq.) Rather, the interference with their rights must be

justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. Due

to the technical progress in the area of radio and television the

reasons which may earlier have justified broadcasting monopolies, in

particular the constraints caused by the scarcity of available

frequencies, have disappeared. In any event, in the applicants' view

the application of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence

presupposes the existence of a licensing procedure which is lacking in

Austria.

57. The Government submit that a broadcasting monopoly is not as such

incompatible with Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence of the

Convention. This last sentence would be deprived of any meaning if

Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) were also to be applied to the licensing

of broadcasting and television. Broadcasting and television should be

treated differently from the print media: They serve the community as

a whole and require regulation by the State in a manner which ensures

that the public is being informed objectively and impartially. State

legislation enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in this respect.

58. The Government submit that the conformity of a broadcasting

monopoly with this provision depends on the manner in which it is

organised. When the Convention was drafted, broadcasting monopolies

existed in most States. Since then, monopolies in many States have

been liberalised. However, there is no consolidated European standard.

Caution is called for when relying on such developments for purposes

of interpreting Article 10 (Art. 10), since the specific conditions in

each country must also be examined. In Austria the legislation

concerned is based on the principles of objective reporting, plurality

of opinions and independence of journalists. The organisation of the

broadcasting monopoly thus meets the requirements of Article 10 para. 1

(Art. 10-1), third sentence.

59. In its earlier case-law on Article 10 para. 1 (art. 10-1), third

sentence, the Commission found that there existed in many Convention

States a system of monopoly enterprises for radio and television, and

that Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence could not be

understood as excluding a broadcasting monopoly as such (see

No. 3071/67, X. v. Sweden, Collection 26 p. 71; No. 6452/74,

Sacchi v. Italy, D.R. 5 p. 50). Subsequently, the Commission found

that if Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence permitted a

State to enact legislation requiring the licensing of broadcasting

enterprises, the State could also enact legislation ensuring compliance

with the licence in question (see No. 10799/84, Radio X. and others v.

Switzerland, D.R. 37 p. 236). On the other hand, the Commission found

that, while broadcasting enterprises have no guarantee of any right to

a licence under the Convention, the rejection by a State of a licence

application must not be manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory (see

No. 10746/84, Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern and Verein Radio

Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland, D.R. 49 p. 139 et seq.).

60. The Court was confronted with Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1),

third sentence in the Groppera case, where it held:

"the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 ((Art. 10-1),

insofar as it amounts to an exception to the principle set forth

in the first and second sentences, is of limited scope ... (T)he

purpose of the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1)

of the Convention is to make it clear that States are permitted

to control by a licensing system the way in which broadcasting

is organised in their territories, particularly in its technical

aspects. It does not, however, provide that licensing measures

shall not otherwise be subject to the requirements of paragraph

2, for that would lead to a result contrary to the object and

purpose of Article 10 (Art. 10) taken as a whole" (see Eur. Court

H.R., Groppera Radio AG and Others judgment of 28 March 1990,

Series A no. 173, p. 24, para. 61; see also Autronic AG judgment

of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 24, para. 52).

61. Thus, the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) is

made subject to the requirements under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2)

for the justification of any interference with the right to freedom of

expression. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that the

licensing requirement limits in principle the rights guaranteed by the

first and second sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1). The

freedom to impart information also through duly licensed broadcasting

is, for these reasons, in principle guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10)

of the Convention.

62. In the present case, Austria has failed to provide for a

procedure through which the applicants could apply for a broadcasting

licence. It follows that there has been an interference with the

applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the

Convention.

63. The question arises in respect of the first applicant's request

for a broadcasting licence whether the establishment of an internal

cable television system, aiming at improving communications between

proprietors of a residential development, amounts to a broadcasting

enterprise within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 10

para. 1 (Art. 10-1). However, the Commission need not resolve this

issue. Thus, even if a cable television system did constitute a

broadcasting enterprise, the Commission has just found that there would

nevertheless have been an interference with the first applicant's right

under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention (see above

para. 62).

b. Relevance of Article 10, para. 1, third sentence (Art. 10-1)

64. Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence remains relevant

in that States are permitted to control by a licensing system the way

in which broadcasting is organised in their territories, particularly

in its technical aspects, for instance in the determination and

allocation of frequencies, without interfering with the rights under

Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention (see the Groppera

judgment, loc. cit., p. 24, para. 61).

65. In the present case, it was not on technical grounds that the

applicants were prevented from obtaining broadcasting licences. It

follows that the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), in

the interpretation given to it by the Court, fails to remove the

interference with the applicants' right under Article 10 para. 1

(Art. 10-1) to freedom of expression, in particular the freedom to

impart information.

66. The Commission must therefore examine whether the interference

satisfied the conditions of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the

Convention.

c. Justification of this interference under Article 10

para. 2 (Art. 10-2)

aa) Was the interference "prescribed by law" (Article 10

para. 2) (Art. 10-2)?

67. The first question is whether the interference was "prescribed

by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the

Convention.

68. Both parties refer in this respect to the Constitutional

Broadcasting Act of 1974 and to the fact that for the time being

implementing regulations only exist with regard to the Austrian

Broadcasting Corporation.

69. The Commission recalls that in order to be "prescribed by law"

within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention,

the interference must have some basis in domestic law. The law must

be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to

enable the individual to regulate his conduct. It is primarily for the

national authorities to interpret the domestic law, as they are

particularly qualified to settle the issues concerned (see Eur. Court

H.R., Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 21 et

seq., paras. 45 et seq.).

70. In the present case, the Commission notes that both the

Telecommunications Act of 1949 and the Private Telecommunication

Installations Ordinance of 1961 envisage the possibility of private

broadcasting installations (see above, paras. 42 et seq.). On the

other hand, Section 1 para. 2 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act

of 1974 provides that more detailed provisions for broadcasting, and

its organisation, are to be determined by an implementing Federal Act

(see above, para. 44). The Broadcasting Corporation Act of 1974

constitutes the only implementing legislation within the meaning of the

Constitutional Broadcasting Act (see above, paras. 45 et seq.). In its

decision of 16 December 1983 the Austrian Constitutional Court found

that this legislation excluded any broadcasting other than by the

Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (see above, para. 32).

71. In the Commission's opinion, the legislation referred to, as

interpreted by the Austrian Constitutional Court, is sufficiently clear

and precise. The interference was therefore "prescribed by law" within

the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

bb) Aim of the interference

72. The next question to be examined under Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention is whether the interference had an aim

which is legitimate.

73. In the Government's submissions, which the applicants contest,

the legislation concerned aimed at preventing manipulation of the

population and the concomitant serious disturbances of the public

order. In the Government's view, the interference thus served "the

prevention of disorder" and the "protection ... of the rights of

others" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the

Convention.

74. The Commission's notes that broadcasting must be organised in

such a manner as to prevent disturbances between the various

broadcasting stations, and between radio and television broadcasting

and other transmissions. This is confirmed by the licensing system in

the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention

which concerns technical aspects of broadcasting (see above para. 64).

The Commission accepts therefore that the establishment of the legal

provisions concerned served in particular "the prevention of disorder'

within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

cc) Necessity of the interference

75. Finally, the Commission must examine whether the interference was

"necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10

para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

76. The applicants contend that there is no urgent social need to

maintain the Austrian broadcasting monopoly which cannot therefore be

regarded as being necessary in a democratic society. In their view,

restrictions of access to the audiovisual media should in principle be

limited to a regulation of the technical aspects but should not concern

the contents of the programmes. It is unnecessary to maintain a

monopoly in order to ensure balanced programmes as the necessary

pluralism can be ensured by competition between several broadcasting

enterprises. In fact, the monopoly does not really enable a free flow

of information and opinions. It does not ensure that the freedom of

expression, in particular that of minorities, can be exercised to the

degree now technically possible and required in a modern democracy.

77. The Government submit that the interference is necessary in a

democratic society within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention. Reference is made to the comparatively

small Austrian market in which it would not be possible to operate many

radio stations on a viable economic basis. The funds available for

commercials would have to be divided up between the Austrian

Broadcasting Corporation, the print media and any new broadcasting

stations. Since there would only be a limited number of such stations,

it would appear unavoidable to subject them to regulations ensuring

their independence and objectivity. Otherwise there would be a danger

of one-sided programmes, undesirable concentration, new local

monopolies, and the abuse of media power. In this situation it was

justified to maintain the public broadcasting monopoly which by its

organisation guaranteed well-balanced, objective and pluralistic

programmes.

78. The Commission recalls that the term "necessary in a democratic

society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the

Convention implies that the interference must correspond to a "pressing

social need" and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In

determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic

society" the Convention organs must also take into account that a

margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see Eur.

Court H.R., Autronic judgment, ibid., p. 28, para. 72; Markt Intern

Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment, Series A no. 165, p. 19 et

seq., para. 33).

79. In the Commission's opinion, this margin of appreciation is of

particular relevance in an area as complex and fluctuating as that of

radio and television broadcasting. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention itself confirms the need for a broad margin of appreciation

in that it envisages in the third sentence of para. 1 a licensing

system for broadcasting enterprises.

80. Turning to the circumstances of the present case the Commission

recalls that it concerns the applicants' complaints that they cannot

obtain broadcasting licences. The Commission is not called upon to

examine the conformity with the Convention of a broadcasting monopoly

as such. Indeed, it cannot be excluded that, where a State has

installed a broadcasting monopoly, it leaves sufficient room for

private initiative, for instance with regard to private programmes, and

thus adequately ensures the enjoyment of the freedom to impart

information within the meaning of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the

Convention.

81. The Commission must therefore examine the reasons for the

necessity of the interference with the applicants' rights. It notes

that the Austrian courts, in the proceedings concerning the first,

third and fifth applicants, refused their requests for a broadcasting

licence without assessing the necessity of the measure within the

meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention (see above,

paras. 32 et seq., 39 and 41).

82. Before the Commission, the Government have submitted that private

broadcasting brings about the danger of one-sided programmes and

manipulation. The Commission notes that Article 10 (Art. 10) is based

on the idea that a pluralism of opinions must be safeguarded.

Therefore, in principle, one-sided programmes must be possible whenever

a sufficient number of frequencies is available.

83. The Government have also referred to possible economic

difficulties and the emergence of new monopolies. In this respect the

Commission is aware of the different solutions adopted in Convention

States with regard to broadcasting in general. These solutions include

systems whereby private broadcasting licences are granted within a

system of public broadcasting, for instance by limiting them to special

times or features. The possibility to obtain licences may also vary

as to local, regional or nationwide broadcasting. The Commission

cannot therefore assume that private broadcasting would necessarily

bring about the difficulties, indicated by the Government.

84. It is true that both the Constitutional Court and the Government

have emphasised the structure of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation

which provides guarantees ensuring the plurality and objectivity of

opinions. However, the Commission finds that no allowance is made at

all within the Broadcasting Corporation for private initiative, for

instance on a local or regional level, which would enable the

applicants adequately to enjoy their freedom to impart information

within the meaning of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

85. The Commission observes that in Austria it is impossible to

obtain licences for private broadcasting; that the grounds explaining

the necessity are insufficient; and that within the Broadcasting

Corporation there is no room for private initiative. In such

circumstances the Commission finds that the national authorities

transgressed the margin of appreciation left to them under the

Convention.

86. In the Commission's opinion, the interference at issue can no

longer be considered "necessary in a democratic society ... for the

prevention of disorder" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2

(Art. 10-2) of the Convention.

87. In view of this conclusion, the Commission finds it unnecessary

further to distinguish between the circumstances of the various

applicants.

Conclusion

88. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has

been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect

of Application No. 13914/88 brought by the first applicant.

89. The Commission concludes, by 14 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect of

Applications Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90, brought

by the second, third, fourth and fifth applicant, respectively.

D. Article 14 of the Convention taken together with

Article 10 (Art. 14+10)

90. The first applicant complains of discrimination in that it is

being treated differently from hotels or institutions for elderly

people whose internal cable television systems are not regarded as

constituting broadcasting within the meaning of the Telecommunications

Act of 1949.

91. The third applicant complains of an alleged discrimination

against the Slovene minority in Carinthia as regards its right of

access to broadcasting. In the third applicant's view, the

Broadcasting Act does not provide for the representation of ethnic

minorities in the various organs of the Austrian Broadcasting

Corporation, and the programmes intended for these minorities are

insufficient.

92. Both applicants rely on Article 14 of the Convention taken

together with Article 10 (Art. 14+10). Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention states:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this

Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other

opinion, national or social origin, association with a national

minority, property, birth or other status."

93. The Commission has already found that the impossibility for the

applicants to obtain broadcasting licences infringed their right under

Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention. This being so, no useful

purpose would be served in determining, in addition, whether there has

been discrimination with regard to other institutions, as alleged by

the first applicant. As regards the third applicant, the Commission

considers that the Austrian system is of a general nature and does not

discriminate against any particular minority.

Conclusion

94. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that in respect

of Application No. 13914/88, brought by the first applicant, it is not

necessary to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14)

of the Convention.

95. The Commission concludes, by 14 votes to 1, that in respect of

Application No. 15717/89, brought by the third applicant, it is not

necessary to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14)

of the Convention.

E. Recapitulation

96. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has

been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect

of Application No. 13914/88 brought by the first applicant (para. 88).

97. The Commission concludes, by 14 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect of

Applications Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90, brought

by the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants, respectively

(para. 89).

98. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that in respect

of Application No. 13914/88, brought by the first applicant, it is not

necessary to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14)

of the Convention (para. 94).

99. The Commission concludes, by 14 votes to 1, that in respect of

Application No. 15717/89, brought by the third applicant, it is not

necessary to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14)

of the Convention (para. 95).

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Sir Basil HALL

I agree that there has been a violation of Article 10 in the case

of INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA; but not quite for the reason given by the

majority of the Commission. My understanding is that the proposal of

the applicant association was that information of concern to residents

and shopkeepers in a residential development in Linz should be recorded

on video cassettes and transmitted to them through an internal cable

system. No use of air waves was to be involved. To my mind neither

the association nor its proposed activity can be regarded as a

"broadcasting enterprise" for the purposes of Article 10, and I cannot

see that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to allow the

establishment of the proposed system was necessary in a democratic

society, for any of the purposes stated in Article 10.

Having reached the conclusion that there has been a violation of

Article 10 in this particular case I do not need to examine whether

there is in addition a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with

Article 10.

With regret - and indeed with reluctance - I find myself unable

to agree with the majority of the Commission that there has been a

violation of the rights of the remaining applicants under Article 10

to freedom of expression.

Though considerable technical advances have been made the

question remains that the number of frequencies available for use for

the broadcasting which the applicants were contemplating remains

limited. Any licensing system which is set up has to provide for

competitive applications for licences from broadcasting enterprises.

Conditions will be prescribed to determine who is eligible for a

licence.

The applicants' complaints under Article 10 are not that they do

not have a right to broadcast, but that the system in force in Austria

is not in line with the requirements of that provision, in particular

because it does not provide for any licensing procedure for private

stations.

It is a matter of speculation whether the applicants would be

eligible to be considered for a licence in any licensing system that

might be introduced, and whether, if eligible, they would successfully

compete for licences. It is questionable therefore whether the effect

on them of the absence of a licensing system is sufficiently direct for

that absence to constitute a violation of their rights to freedom of

expression.

The majority of the Commission have concluded that there is now

an obligation on member States to set up licensing systems or the

equivalent, and that the Commission's earlier view, that Article 10

para. 1 third sentence could not be understood as excluding a system

of monopoly enterprises for radio and television, no longer has

validity.

That view was based in part on the fact that systems of

monopolies then existed in most member States. It is true that there

has since then been a great increase in the access of individuals and

organisation, in particular of commercial enterprises, to broadcasting

facilities. This has been achieved in various ways. A licensing of

private broadcasters is one. Another is the making of contractual

arrangements for the sake of air time to programme makers, who recoup

the cost by in turn selling space to advertisers. Yet another is by

conferring a right of reply. Though this is so, the situation remains

that in some states and in some regions, monopolies still exist.

The Convention must be applied against the background of existing

conditions, but it does not seem to me that the time has yet arrived

when it can be held that the right to freedom of expression given by

Article 10 requires member States to provide a system under which

individuals and organisations can apply for permission to establish

broadcasting stations, or that an individual or body can claim that

there has been a violation of Article 10 because such a system has not

been introduced.

The third applicant, AGORA, also complains of discrimination

against the Slovenian minority in Carinthia. Provision is however made

in programmes for that minority, and even if it were to be accepted

that the third applicant has the status to make this complaint, I do

not consider that the time allotted to the Slovenian minority is so

short as to amount to discriminatory treatment.

CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES

Although I agree with all the conclusions of the Commission, my

approach as regards the violations of Article 10 of the Convention in

these cases is as follows:

The right to freedom of expression and in particular freedom to

impart information and ideas cannot be meaningful in a modern

democratic society if the use of mass media of communication, such as

broadcasting, is blocked through a system of monopoly of such media.

Therefore I believe that the state broadcasting monopoly in Austria,

which led to the refusal of broadcasting licences to the applicants is

per se incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. The more so as

such monopoly, being in the hands of the State, implies of necessity

an interference by "public authority" in respect of the rights in

question contrary to the express provisions of Article 10.

The object and effect of the third sentence of para. 1 of

Article 10 is not to allow monopolies but simply to permit States to

regulate through a licensing system the use of broadcasting, television

and cinema enterprises in line with the provisions of para. 2 of the

same Article, in view of the importance of these media of communication

and the inherent technical difficulties that would arise from an

unlimited use of such media. The licensing system in question by

itself implies the exclusion of monopolies. Licensing means regulation

and regulation cannot amount to suppression.

In the present case the only reason for refusing broadcasting

licences to the applicants was the existence of the State broadcasting

monopoly. Therefore such refusal was in my opinion an unjustified

interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 of the

Convention.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

16 April 1987 Introduction of Application No. 13914/88

15 May 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15041/89

27 September 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15717/89

18 September 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15779/89

20 August 1990 Introduction of Application No. 17207/90

3 June 1988 Registration of Application No. 13914/88

23 May 1989 Registration of Application No. 15041/89

30 October 1989 Registration of Application No. 15717/89

20 November 1989 Registration of Application No. 15779/89

26 September 1990 Registration of Application No. 17207/90

Examination of Admissibility

13 July 1990 Commission's decision to join Applications

Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89 and to

invite the Government to submit observations on

the admissibility and merits of these

applications and of Application No. 13914/88

12 July 1991 Commission's decision to invite the Government

to submit observations on the admissibility and

merits of Application No. 17207/90

14 November 1990 Government's observations on Application

No. 13914/88

15 November 1990 Government's observations on Applications

Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89

2 October 1991 Government's observations on Application

No. 17207/90

29 January 1991 Applicant's observations in reply of

No. 15717/89

27 February 1991 Applicants' observations in reply of

Nos. 15041/89 and 15779/89

15 May 1991 Applicant's observations in reply of

No. 13914/88

8 November 1991 Applicant's observations in reply of

No. 17207/90

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

3 September 1991 Commission's decision to hold an oral hearing

6 December 1991 Commission's decision to include Application

No. 17207/90 in hearing

14 January 1992 Commission's decision to join all five cases

15 January 1992 Oral hearing on admissibility and merits,

Commission's decision to declare:

- inadmissible the fifth applicant's complaint

under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

- admissible Application No. 15041/89 and the

remainders of Applications Nos. 13914/88,

15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90

Examination of the merits

16 May 1992 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

1 September 1992 Commission's deliberations on the merits and

final vote

9 September 1992 Commission's deliberations and adoption of the

Report

Menu

INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA, JÖRG HAIDER, AKTIONSGEMEINSCHAFT OFFENES RADIO (AGORA), WILHELM WEBER AND RADIO MELODY Ges.m.b.H. v. AUSTRIA

INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA, JÖRG HAIDER, AKTIONSGEMEINSCHAFT OFFENES RADIO (AGORA), WILHELM WEBER AND RADIO MELODY Ges.m.b.H. v. AUSTRIA

LEXI