THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows:

1. The first applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1910

and resident in B. The second applicant is an association founded by

him on .. May 1968 and run by him as an "absolute controller" solely

responsible for its operation, finance and policy. The main objects of

the association are to "gather together in a single organisation all

British people who wish to determine the destiny of Britain" and "to

demand that in all matters affecting the British way of life and the

British Constitution the issue shall be determined directly by the

people of Britain".

2. In the original submissions the applicants complain that the

association has consistently been refused an opportunity to put forward

its point of view on both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

and independent television networks. It is contended that this

interferes with the right under Article 10 of the Convention to impart

information.

3. The applicants submit that so far as the BBC is concerned, the

refusal to allow them broadcasting time is contained in a series of

letters between .. December 1969 and .. January 1970. The position

adopted by the BBC in this correspondence was that the "usual criteria

(i.e. the grounds for allowing broadcasting time) are representation

in Parliament or (at election time) the number of parliamentary

candidates in the field".

According to the applicants, this provision automatically excludes them

from expressing their point of view on the air as the association does

not put forward candidates for election. In the applicant's submission,

this restriction by the BBC is made in agreement with and by the

authority of the respondent Government.

4. In ... 1970, the association applied to Westward Television Ltd. to

purchase advertising time. On .. January 1970 the company replied that,

while it seemed that the association was not a political party as it

did not intend to put up candidates for election, a number of the

objects of the association were obviously concerned with political

issues. It would therefore be unable to advertise on Westward

Television. In this connection reference was made to the following

provision in the Independent Television Code of Advertising Standards

and Practice (April 1969):

"No advertisement may be inserted by or on behalf of any body, the

objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political

nature, and advertisements must not be directed towards any religious

or political end or have any relation to any industrial dispute."

This provision refers to and is virtually identical with Schedule 2,

paragraph 8 to the Television Act 1964. This Act governs the

constitution and powers of the Independent Television Authority whose

function under the Act is to provide television broadcasting services,

additional to those of the BBC.

On .. January 1970 the Independent Television Companies Association

Ltd. to whom the matter had been referred confirmed the position taken

by Westward Television.

The applicants then wrote to the Ministry of Posts and

Telecommunications asking that Schedule 2, paragraph 8 of the 1964 Act

should be repealed as it was in conflict with Article 10 of the

Convention. In a letter of .. March 1970 the Ministry stated that the

clause concerned served "to prevent the exponents of political views

with the longest purse - whoever these may be - from having an

advantage in terms of buying time on television to promote their

cause". If the clause did not exist, less well endowed parties or

movements would have great difficulty in maintaining their point of

view in the face of massive purchase of advertising time by their

opponents. In the Ministry's opinion, this safeguard was covered by

Article 10 (2) of the Convention as being necessary "for the protection

of the ... rights of others". The applicants then requested certain

clarifications of this statement but were informed by the Ministry on

24 April 1970 that there was nothing to add.

5. In a further submission to the Commission dated 15 March 1971, the

applicants have made further allegations and complaints.

Referring to the general election which had taken place in June 1970

subsequent to the introduction of the application, the applicants claim

that the conduct of this election demonstrates not only the substance

of their complaint but also its clear effects in practical conditions.

The applicants recall that the main political parties are given

broadcasting time in proportion to their respective strength in the

House of Commons. The applicants maintain that during the official

election period the "Party Political Broadcasters" continued right up

to polling day. However, other political parties with several

candidates in the field were not provided with similar broadcasting

facilities. In the applicants' opinion, these broadcasts during the

election period were illegal according to the Representation of the

People Act 1949 and later amendments. As such broadcasting time is

provided free, this constitutes a contribution to party political funds

which is not available to any political party or organisation not

represented in Parliament.

The applicants further submit that although provision is made for the

conduct of an election to be challenged, an elector is required to

first give security in the sum of £1,000 in violation of Articles 6,

13 and 14 of the Convention.

6. In the submission of 15 March 1971, the applicants sum up their

specific complaints and allege that there is a violation of Article 10

of the Convention on the following grounds:

- Prohibition of political advertising by the Television Act 1964,

Schedule 2, paragraph 8;

- This prohibition has even greater significance when the major

political parties reserve to themselves exclusively the right to

broadcasting time. In the case of television this broadcasting is

carried out simultaneously on all channels;

- This special facility when used illegally during the period of an

election not only violates Article 10 but also Articles 6, 13 and 14

of the Convention;

- There is no effective remedy before a national authority because

either such an authority does not exist or remedies through official

channels are made difficult or impossible by onerous legal provisions

and discrimination in violation of Article 14;

- Not only has the respondent Government failed to carry out is

obligations under the Convention but it has conspired with special

interests in Britain to restrict the rights and freedoms set forth in

the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicants have complained of the refusal of the BBC to allow

the applicant Association broadcasting time and alleged thereby a

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

However, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, the

Commission may only admit an application from a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals, where the

applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the

rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and where that Party

has recognised this competence of the Commission.

The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications against private

individuals or bodies whose acts do not entail the responsibility of

a Contracting Party under the Convention.

In the present case, the question arises whether the respondent

Government could be held responsible under the Convention for any acts

of the BBC (see No. 3059/67 Collection of Decisions, Vol. 28, p. 89).

However, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine this

issue in the circumstances of the present application as, even assuming

that the allegations made by the applicants could involve such

responsibility, this part of the application is, in any event,

inadmissible on other grounds.

It is evident that the freedom to "impart information and ideas"

included in the right to freedom of expression under Article 10

(Art. 10) of the Convention, cannot be taken to include a general and

unfettered right for any private citizen or organisation to have access

to broadcasting time on radio and television in order to forward its

opinion. On the other and, the Commission considers that the denial of

broadcasting time to one or more specific groups or persons may, in

particular circumstances, raise an issue under Article 10 alone or in

conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 10, 14) of the Convention. Such an

issue would, in principle, arise, for instance, if one political party

was excluded from broadcasting facilities at election time while other

parties were given broadcasting time.

In the present case, the Commission finds, however, that the applicants

have failed to establish the existence of any such particular

circumstances. An examination of this complaint, as it has been

submitted, does not therefore disclose the appearance of a violation

of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention or any other provisions

thereof.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention.

2. The applicants have also complained of the legislation which

prevents the independent television network in the United Kingdom from

accepting advertisements of a political nature. The Commission has

again considered this complaint under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention.

The Commission notes that, apart from the limitations on the exercise

of the freedom of expression set out in paragraph (2) of Article 10

(Art. 10-2), paragraph (1) of the Article (Art. 10-1) provides that

this "Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of

broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises". The Commission

considers that the notion of licensing implies that, in granting

licence, the State may subject radio and television broadcasting to

certain regulations. In this context the practice in different member

States of the Council of Europe should be taken into consideration. It

is clear that a number of these States do not permit any advertising

at all on radio and television, whereas other member States allow such

advertising but have, at the same time, laid down rules concerning the

types of advertisements admitted. In these circumstances, the

Commission finds that the provisions of Article 10 (1) (Art. 10-1)

should be interpreted as permitting the State, in granting licence, to

exclude, as in the present case, certain specified categories of

advertisements.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention.

3. The Commission has finally examined the remainder of the applicant's

complaints which relate to the conduct of the general elections in the

United Kingdom in 1970.

However, after considering these complaints as a whole, the Commission

finds that they do not generally disclose any appearance of a violation

of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.

It follows that the remainder of the application is as a whole also

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION

INADMISSIBLE