THE FACTS

Whereas a summary of the facts presented by the Applicant is to the

following effect:

The Applicant is a Swedish citizen living in Stockholm and has held

various high political offices (Governor of B., Deputy Speaker of the

First Chamber of Parliament, Representative to the United Nations).

I. His Application is directed against the newly enacted Swedish

Statute on Radio and Television of 30th December 1966, (Statute No.

755). He states that in Article 5 of this Statute it is provided that

one enterprise, which is nominated by the King-in-Council, shall have

the sole right to decide which broadcasting programmes shall be

transmitted on radio or television to the public of Sweden. According

to Swedish law there is no domestic remedy against this provision.

Furthermore, Article 5 gives to one enterprise a monopoly right to all

kinds of broadcasting and is, according to the Applicant's opinion,

contrary to Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Convention on Human

Rights.

In particular, the Applicant submits that the last sentence of

paragraph (1) which allows States to require the licensing of certain

enterprises must be interpreted in a narrow sense. The fact that a

licensing system is permitted does not mean that States have a right

to establish a monopoly system by licensing only one enterprise in the

country concerned. The wording of this part of the Article, where it

expressly speaks of several "enterprises", indicates that only a

licensing system which allows the right of broadcasting to be given to

several enterprises is admissible. The principle dangers of the Swedish

monopoly system to freedom of opinion will become more serious when the

plans to let the monopoly enterprise transmit television programmes on

two different channels are realised. Then the public can choose between

two programmes, although produced by the same monopoly enterprise,

their interest in the printed word, such a newspapers, periodicals and

books, will diminish.  It will then be still more difficult to reach

the public with ideas other than those which are authorised by the

monopoly enterprise. Persons who want to introduce ideas which do not

conform with those that are held by the monopoly enterprise will have

such difficulties that the freedom to receive and impart information

and ideas, as mentioned in the Convention, will be an illusion.

Only such newspapers and periodicals as have the powerful support of

big industrial circles or big organisations of other kinds have a real

possibility to spread information. All others will be doomed to

silence. This development will endanger the free democratic system of

the country. Only opinions authorised by the monopoly broadcasting

enterprise or by other powerful interests will have a chance to reach

the public.

Especially dangerous is the monopoly of the single enterprise of radio

and television. There can be no real competition between two channels

that are run by the same enterprise. Instead a certain conformity to

the general taste of the employees of the enterprise will be likely to

develop.

By reviewing only such books, films and theatre performances as are in

conformity with the ideas of the monopoly enterprise, that enterprise

will be able to push public opinion in the direction it wants and to

suppress ideas which are unpopular among its own employees.

The same member of the Government who was responsible for the new

Statute has recently been publicly lamenting that the views of his

party are not sufficiently observed in certain Stockholm newspapers

which have virtually a monopoly if the press. These papers are,

according to this Minister, giving the public a false picture of the

ideas and actions of his party. The same reflection can be made by many

persons in view of the monopoly enterprise of radio and television.

Many interesting ideas have, under the present circumstances, no chance

of being expressed through these media.

It has to be added that such dangers for the democratic system are

especially serious in a country where the consolidated political

parties have given themselves big state subsidies in order to

strengthen their own positions and to prevent the rise to power of new,

competitive parties. A system of several competing broadcasting

enterprises is badly needed if freedom of opinion is to be preserved.

With regard to the question in what way he is a victim of the Statute

concerned, the Applicant submits the following:

Whereas the Convention has been violated by enacting a Statute which

affects the position of all citizens, every citizen has also the right

to claim that he is a victim of that violation. During the last year

there has been a considerable number of cases in which individuals have

been denied the right to correct false broadcasting programmes

affecting them. When a programme is transmitted on the television

screen, the pictures make such an impression on the public that it is

much more difficult afterwards to correct the impression than to

correct a programme broadcast on the radio.

II. The Applicant mentions certain examples in this respect some of

them concerning him personally, but he states that the central point

that has to be investigated is not what happened to him but the

question whether or not Article 5 of the Swedish Statute is a violation

of the European Convention.

(1) The Applicant refers in particular to a television broadcast in the

beginning of 1967 giving, according to him, a false picture of certain

events in the L. company in Liberia in 1966. This programme has aroused

much attention in Sweden. He states that the Director of the

Information Service of the company concerned could give an account

showing that there have been insufficient possibilities to correct this

television broadcast.

(2) He further states that, in January, 1954, and again on later

occasions, he himself, when still in service as Governor of B., was

denied the right of correcting entirely inaccurate information

broadcast by the Swedish radio with regard to one of his official acts.

(3) In May, 1959, it was stated on television that the Applicant had

refused to discuss a certain matter on television whereas, in fact, he

had only asked to postpone the programme by one week pending the

results of an official investigation of the matter concerned. The

Applicant brought the issue before a special radio board set up to hear

complaints by the public but the board only decided that the programme

could not be postponed and did not touch the real issue of his

complaint.

(4) In 1965, the Applicant was asked to take part in a programme

dealing with the life of the farmers in East Africa in the

nineteen-twenties. However, when he gave his consent, subject only to

certain conditions intended to ensure the objectivity of the programme,

there was no longer any interest in his participation. He then wrote

a book on the life in East Africa in the twenties and this book was

never mentioned on radio or television.

THE LAW

Whereas the Applicant complains that by virtue of Article 5 of the

Statute of 30th December, 1966, radio and television are held as a

monopoly in the hands of one public enterprise and no competing

enterprises may be admitted; whereas the Applicant does not allege that

he himself or any group to which he belongs wishes to establish an

independent broadcasting or television enterprise; whereas he states,

however, that as a member of the general public he is affected in his

rights and freedoms guaranteed under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention;

Whereas in this respect the question arises whether the Applicant,

because of this alleged general impact on all citizens, can claim to

be a victim of an alleged violation of the Convention as is required

by Article 25 (Art. 25) thereof; whereas, however, the Commission does

not find it necessary to pursue this question in the present case;

Whereas, indeed, Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, which

guarantees the freedom of expression and the right to receive and

impart information and ideas, provides expressly in the last sentence

of paragraph (1) (Art. 10-1) that "this Article shall not prevent

States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or

cinema enterprises";

Whereas this provision does not state whether such enterprises shall

be organised as private or as public corporations or whether they may

be granted a monopoly in the field of this particular activity or

whether there must at the same time exist competing enterprises;

whereas the Applicant relies on the fact that the provision speaks of

several "enterprises";

Whereas, however, the use of the plural term is grammatically

consistent with the previous reference in the text to "States" in

general as opposed to a "State"; whereas, when interpreting the term

"licensing"" in the provision in question, the Commission finds it

necessary to take into consideration the practice in different

countries which are member States of the Council of Europe; whereas in

this respect it appears that, both at the time of the drafting of the

Convention and at the present time, a great number of such member

States had established a system of public monopoly enterprises for

radio and television; whereas, therefore, the Commission finds that the

term "licensing" mentioned in the Convention cannot be understood as

excluding in any way a public television monopoly as such; whereas,

consequently, an examination of the substances of this part of the

application, including an examination ex officio, does not show any

appearance of a violation of the provisions of the Convention, and in

particular of Article 10 (Art. 10);

Whereas, furthermore, in connection with this general complaint the

Applicant has referred, by way of example, to four incidents which

allegedly show that the existing radio and television system does not

give an individual sufficient possibilities of replying to incorrect

statements made in radio or television programmes; whereas he has not

made it entirely clear whether he also wishes to put forward these

incidents as the basis of separate complaints;

Whereas, on the presumption that these incidents are so to be

considered, the Commission notes that certain of the radio and

television programmes to which the Applicant refers concerned him

personally; whereas he alleges that, in these instances, he was not

given a chance to present his opinions and actions in a fair and

correct manner to a radio and television audience; whereas, however,

these incidents took place in 1957, 1959 and 1965; whereas Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only deal

with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on which the

final decision was taken";

Whereas the present application was not submitted to the Commission

until 15th February, 1967, that is more than six months after the

actions of the radio and television corporation to which the Applicant

refers and whereas no further remedies or decisions followed at a later

date; whereas furthermore an examination of the case does not disclose

the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted

or suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that these

parts of the Application have been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and

27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention);

Whereas the Applicant also refers to a television programme broadcast

in early 1967; whereas, however, on the same presumption that this

incident is also to be considered as a separate complaint, the

Commission has taken into consideration the fact that this programme

related to the enterprise set up in Liberia by a Swedish company;

Whereas in this respect it is to be observed that, according to Article

25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, the Commission may receive petitions

from any person "claiming to be the victim" of a violation of a right

or freedom guaranteed by the Convention; whereas the Applicant has not

alleged that the allegedly incorrect television reports on the L.

enterprise in any way concerned him personally and affected him in

relation to one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention; whereas it follows that, in regard to this incident, the

conditions under which the Commission may receive an Application from

an individual are not satisfied; and whereas therefore, this part of

the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention

and whereas consequently it must be rejected in accordance with Article

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

Now therefore the Commission declares this application inadmissible.