AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 25060/94

                      by Jörg HAIDER

                      against Austria

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 18 October 1995, the following members being present:

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

           Mrs.  M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 20 June 1994 by

Jörg HAIDER against Austria and registered on 1 September 1994 under

file No. 25060/94;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1950 and residing

in Klagenfurt.  He is a politician and leader of the Austrian Freedom

Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs).  Before the Commission he is

represented by Messrs. Böhmdorfer and Machold, lawyers practising in

Vienna.

     The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A.   Particular circumstances of the case

1.   The television interview of 10 November 1991

     On 10 November 1991 elections for the Vienna Municipal Council

(Gemeinderat) took place.  In the evening of the same day a special

programme on the elections was transmitted in television by the ORF

(Österreichischer Rundfunk = Austrian Broadcasting Corporation).  In

this programme nine representatives of political parties, including the

applicant, were interviewed.  The interview with the applicant was

conducted by Mr. Broukal, a television presentator.  The text of the

interview is as follows:

BROUKAL:   .. We continue our sequence of statements by leading

           politicians.  The next one live from the Vienna City Hall

           is the chairman of the FPÖ Jörg Haider.  Mr. Haider can you

           hear me?

HAIDER:    Yes

BROUKAL:   Yes.  Good evening Mr. Haider.  I have thought for a long

           time what to ask a glorious victor like you.  However, one

           question must be asked: your party had used in this

           election campaign the question of foreigners as main

           argument and for the first time in this city since decades

           turned foreigners into some sort of non-persons.  Can one

           sincerely approve of such an electoral victory?

HAIDER:    This is complete nonsense what you are telling here. And it

           is in line with the ORF's reporting in recent weeks to

           achieve a socialist majority in Vienna.  We from the

           Freedom Party have been saying for four years much the same

           as the Socialist Party and in particular the Mayor Helmut

           Zilk have been claiming in the last days of the election

           campaign.  We welcome refugees with open arms, also from

           Croatia, but on the other hand we are against a policy of

           receiving immigrants without any limitations whilst we have

           170,000 jobless Austrians and whilst we have 200,000

           Austrians queuing up for housing, and who now fear that

           foreigners who come here are served first.  And this is a

           clear decision we have taken.  We make politics for

           Austrians.  We are not xenophobes but favourable to our

           inhabitants and this has been appreciated by the voters and

           we will continue such a policy more strongly in the future.

BROUKAL:   Thank you very much Mr. Haider.  Maybe you should know one

           more thing: over the last year I go for a walk in a park in

           the sixth district.  Since your election campaign has

           started someone has written on every park bench "foreigners

           out" and on some there is a swastika.  Many thanks.

HAIDER:    But the question is who is that someone, and I have the

           impression that it often comes from those who favour a

           conflict.  We want to avoid in Austria a situation like in

           Germany or France.

BROUKAL:   Thank you very much for your statement.  I hear from the

           studio that we have Vice Chancellor Busek now on the phone.

           Good evening Mr. Vice Chancellor.

BROUKAL:   ... Daher weiter im Reigen der Stellungnahmen der

           Spitzenpolitiker.  Als nächster wieder live im Wiener

           Rathaus, wo er anwesend ist, FPÖ-Bundesparteiobmann Jörg

           Haider.  Herr Bundesparteiobmann Haider, können Sie mich

           hören?

HAIDER:    Ja.

BROUKAL:   Ja. Guten Abend, Herr Dr. Haider!  Ich habe mir lange

           überlegt was frägt man so einen so strahlenden Wahlsieger

           wie Sie.  Aber dennoch, eine Frage muß sein: Ihre Partei

           hat in diesem Wahlkampf vor allem mit der Ausländerfrage

           argumentiert und sie hat Ausländer zum ersten Mal seit

           vielen Jahrzehnten in dieser Stadt zu so etwas wie

           Unpersonen gemacht.  Kann man sich mit einem solchen

           Wahlsieg ehrlichen Herzens einverstanden erklären?

HAIDER:    Das ist ja absoluter Unsinn, was Sie hier verzapfen.  Und

           das ist auf der Linie der Berichterstattung des ORFs in den

           letzten Wochen, um die sozialistische Mehrheit in Wien zu

           garantieren.  Denn wir Freiheitlichen sagen seit vier

           Jahren das, was im Grunde genommen auch die Sozialistische

           Partei und vor allem Bürgermeister Helmut Zilk in den

           letzten Wahlkampftagen auch von sich gegeben hat.  Wir

           nehmen jederzeit Flüchtlinge mit offenen Armen auf, auch

           die kroatischen, wie wir unter Beweis gestellt haben, und

           auf der anderen Seite sind wir aber dagegen, daß

           Einwanderer ohne Begrenzung bei uns aufgenommen werden,

           solange wir 170.000 arbeitslose Österreicher haben und

           solange 200.000 Österreicher um Wohnungen sich anstellen

           und jetzt Angst haben müssen, daß Ausländer, die hier

           hereinkommen, vor ihnen zum Zug kommen.  Und das ist eben

           eine klare Entscheidung, die wir getroffen haben.  Wir

           machen eine Politik für die Österreicher.  Wir sind nicht

           ausländerfeindlich, aber wir sind inländerfreundlich und

           das hat uns auch der Wähler honoriert und das werden wir

           auch in Zukunft verstärkt fortsetzen.

BROUKAL:   Bedanke mich vielmals, Herr Dr. Haider.  Vielleicht sollten

           Sie noch wissen: ich gehe seit einem Jahr in einem Park im

           6. Bezirk spazieren.  Seit Ihre Wahlkampagne begonnen hat,

           steht dort auf jeder Parkbank "Ausländer raus" und auf

           einigen das Hakenkreuz.  Herzlichen Dank.

HAIDER:    Aber es ist die Frage er hat also diese Parolen

           aufgeschmiert und das - habe ich so das Gefühl - kommt oft

           von jenen, die gerne einen Konflikt hätten.  Wir wollen

           deutsche und französische Verhältnisse in Österreich

           verhindern.

BROUKAL:   Ich bedanke mich für die Stellungnahme.  So, ich erfahre

           von der Regie, daß mittlerweile doch Vizekanzler Busek am

           Telephon ist.  Guten Abend, Herr Vizekanzler!

     On the next day Mr. Broukal, in the news programme "Zeit im

Bild", added the following statement:

     Just two more sentences on the talk I had yesterday evening with

     the chairman of the Austrian Freedom Party in the programme on

     the Vienna Municipal elections:  As a descendant of Czech

     immigrants, who before 1914 were welcome to Vienna as labour

     force and citizens, I feel much concern about the increasing

     rejection of foreigners.  However, I did not want to insinuate

     that Mr. Haider or the FPÖ are deliberately inciting hatred of

     foreigners.

     Noch zwei Sätze zu meinem Gespräch mit FPÖ-Obmann Dr. Haider

     gestern abend in der Sendung über die Wiener Landtagswahl: Als

     Nachkomme tschechischer Einwanderer, die vor 1914 in Wien als

     Arbeitskräfte und Mitbürger willkommen waren, empfinde ich die

     zunehmende Ablehnung von Ausländern sehr schmerzlich.  Ich wollte

     aber weder Dr. Haider noch der FPÖ unterstellen, daß sie

     absichtlich Ausländerfeindlichkeit fördern wollen.

     The applicant lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board (Kommission zur Wahrung des Rundfunkgesetzes) in

which he complained that Mr. Broukal's manner of interviewing him

violated the ORF's obligation of objectivity under the Broadcasting

Act.

     On 3 January 1992 the Broadcasting Supervisory Board, after an

oral hearing, dismissed the applicant's complaint.  It referred to a

decision of the Constitutional Court of 21 June 1989, according to

which the principle of objectivity under the Broadcasting Act applied

to all kinds of programmes, but not in the same way.  Thus, a less

rigorous standard applied to interviews consisting of a sequence of

speech and counterspeech.  In an interview the interviewer was not

bound to give merely neutral cues for the statements of the interviewed

person but could also express critical and even provocative points of

view, as the interviewed person could reply immediately.  The principle

of objectivity therefore did not compel journalists to suppress their

own critical opinion, in particular since according to the relevant

case-law of the European Court of Human Rights the boundaries of

admissible criticism were wider when politicians were concerned.

     The Broadcasting Supervisory Board noted that the programme at

issue concerned interviews with several politicians and that the

applicant, when interviewed by Mr. Broukal, could and did react to the

statements of the latter.  Furthermore, the statements of Mr. Broukal

were in close relation to the issue of the Municipal Elections as it

was common knowledge that the question of foreigners, also raised by

the applicant himself, was an important issue in these elections.  The

Broadcasting Supervisory Board concluded that Mr. Broukal's statements

were still within the boundaries of acceptable criticism and therefore

did not violate the principle of objectivity under the Broadcasting

Act.

     At the oral hearing the applicant had also challenged for bias

the two members of the Broadcasting Supervisory Board who were not

judges because they were members of political parties.  The

Broadcasting Supervisory Board dismissed the challenge and found that

the mere fact that a person was member of a political party or held

offices therein could not alone give rise to doubts as to the

impartiality of the person concerned.

     The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court

(Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the above decision of the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board.

     On 27 September 1993 the Constitutional Court dismissed the

complaint.  As regards the applicant's submission that the two members

of the Broadcasting Supervisory Board who were not judges had been

biased because of their closeness to or engagement in political

parties, the Constitutional Court found that a political activity as

such was no sufficient reason for raising doubts as to the impartiality

of the members concerned.  The Constitutional Court further found that

the Broadcasting Supervisory Board had dealt thoroughly with the

applicant's complaint and the reasons given by the Board were neither

unreasonable nor arbitrary.

     This decision was served on the applicant on 23 December 1993.

2.   Television reporting in January 1992 on the Decision on

     Admissibility of the European Commission of Human Rights in the

     Informationsverein Lentia and others case

     The applicant had introduced with the European Commission of

Human Rights one of the applications which eventually led to the

European Court of Human Right's judgment in the Informationsverein

Lentia and others case, which concerned the de facto monopoly of the

ORF under the Austrian broadcasting legislation (Eur. Court H.R.,

judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276).  In the course of

these proceedings the European Commission of Human Rights held a

hearing on 15 January 1992 and on the same day declared the

applications partly admissible.

     On 17 January 1992 the applicant filed a complaint with the

Broadcasting Supervisory Board, complaining that the ORF had failed to

report in television or radio on the Commission's Decision on

Admissibility of 15 January 1992 while the written press had done so.

     On 21 February 1992 the Broadcasting Supervisory Board, after an

oral hearing, dismissed the applicant's complaint. It noted that in the

evening of 15 January 1992 the Secretariat of the European Commission

of Human Rights had informed by telephone the parties to the

proceedings of the decision taken by the Commission.  Thereupon the

applicant had immediately issued a press release to the Austrian Press

Agency.  In the evening of 16 January 1992 the ORF had received by

telefax the text of a press release issued by the Commission.  On 17

January from 14.00 hours onwards the ORF had reported in radio and

television news on the Commission's Decision on Admissibility.  In this

respect the Broadcasting Supervisory Board noted the applicant's

submission made at the hearing that the information on the Commission's

Decision on Admissibility had not been given proper importance in the

radio and television news.

     The Broadcasting Supervisory Board left open the question whether

the Commission's Decision on Admissibility was an event of such

importance that the ORF had been obliged by the principle of

objectivity contained in the Broadcasting Act to report thereon.  It

found that in any event the ORF had reported on this event and that the

delay until 17 January 1992 in itself had not infringed the

Broadcasting Act.  As regards the applicant's complaint about the

allegedly improper weight given to the event, the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board found that such decisions had to be taken by the

responsible journalists who under the provisions of the Broadcasting

Act were independent in this respect.  The Broadcasting Supervisory

Board also dismissed the applicant's challenge for bias of the members

of the Board who were not judges, for the same reasons as given in its

decision of 3 January 1992.

     The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court

against the above decision of the Broadcasting Supervisory Board.

     On 27 September 1993 the Constitutional Court dismissed the

applicant's complaint.  It found that the Broadcasting Supervisory

Board had dealt thoroughly with the applicant's complaint and the

reasons given by the Board were neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.

Furthermore the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's

complaint about the alleged bias of members of the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board for the same reasons as given in its decision of the

same day on the other complaint by the applicant.  This decision was

served on the applicant on 22 December 1993.

B.   Relevant domestic law

     The Broadcasting Act of 1974 (Bundesgesetz über die Aufgaben und

die Einrichtung des Österreichischen Rundfunks) establishes the

Austrian Broadcasting Corporation with the status of an autonomous

public-law corporation.

     It is under a duty to provide comprehensive news coverage of

major political, economic, cultural and sporting events; to this end,

it has to broadcast, in compliance with the requirements of objectivity

and diversity of views, in particular current affairs, news reports,

commentaries and critical opinions (Section 2 para. 1 (1)).

Broadcasting time must be allocated to the political parties

represented in the national parliament and to representative

associations (Section 5 para. 1).

     A Broadcasting Supervisory Board rules on all disputes concerning

the application of the Broadcasting Act which fall outside the

jurisdiction of an administrative authority or court (Section 25 and

27).  It is composed of seventeen independent members, including nine

judges, appointed for terms of four years by the President of the

Republic on the proposal of the Federal Government.  The Board decides

in chambers consisting of three judges and two members who are not

judges (Section 28).

COMPLAINTS

1.   The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that

the way in which the ORF reported on news events in general and on

himself in particular did not meet the requirements of plurality of

information and objectivity as required by Article 10 of the

Convention.

2.   He further complains about discrimination by the Austrian

authorities against him because of his status as politician of the

opposition.  He invokes Article 14 of the Convention.

3.   Lastly he complains that because members of the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board were biased, he did not have an effective remedy

within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for the purpose of

complaining  about the violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention that the way in which the ORF reported on news events in

general and on himself in particular did not meet the requirements of

plurality of information and objectivity as required by Article 10

(Art. 10) of the Convention.

     Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention reads as follows:

     "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."

2.   Insofar the applicant complains that the way in which the ORF

reported on news events in general did not meet the requirements of

Article 10 (Art.10) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that

under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention it may only receive

petitions from a "person, non-governmental organisation or group of

individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation ...".  It follows

from this provision that the applicant cannot complain as a

representative for people in general, because the Convention does not

permit such an "actio popularis".  The Commission is only required to

examine the applicant's complaints that he was himself a victim of a

violation.  The Commission finds therefore that the applicant can only

claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention insofar he complains about the manner in which the ORF

reported on news events which had a relation to the applicant himself

(see No. 7045/75, Dec. 10.12.76, D.R. 7, p. 87; No. 9297/81, Dec.

1.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 204; No. 10039/82, Dec. 11.5.84, D.R. 38, p. 74).

     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione personae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)

of the Convention.

3.   The Commission has next examined the applicant's complaint that

the way in which the ORF reported on news events which had a relation

to himself violated Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

     The Commission recalls that 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 or television in order to forward his opinion, save under

exceptional circumstances, for instance if one political party is

excluded from broadcasting facilities at election time while other

parties are given broadcasting time (No. 9297/81, Dec. 1.3.82, D.R. 28,

p. 204; No. 23550/94, Dec. 24.2.95, unpublished).

a.   The Commission finds that the allegedly belated and insufficient

reporting by the ORF on the Commission's Decision on Admissibility of

15 January 1992 in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and others did

not amount to an interference with the applicant's rights under

Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

     In this respect the Commission also notes the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board's decision of 21 February 1992 on this issue,

confirmed by the Austrian Constitutional Court on 27 September 1993,

according to which the information on the Commission's decision in

question had not been immediately available to the ORF.  The

Supervisory Board's decision correctly pointed out that the weight to

be given to this information was a matter to be assessed, in principle,

by the responsible journalists.  Even considering that the news item

in question concerned the ORF itself and its status under the Austrian

broadcasting legislation, the Commission is satisfied that this element

did not improperly influence the manner of reporting.  Nor does the

Commission find any indication that the manner of reporting was

affected by inappropriate considerations relating to the fact that one

of the successful applicants was Mr. Haider, being an opposition leader

who had himself issued a press release on this matter.

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

b.   As regards the applicant's submissions concerning the interview

Mr. Broukal made with him on 10 November 1991 and the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board's decision of 3 January 1992, the Commission observes

that the applicant, as one of several leading Austrian politicians, was

interviewed in the course of a special programme on the Vienna

Municipal elections.  The applicant's complaint therefore does not

relate to an alleged refusal of access to the media.

     The Commission finds that a right for a politician to be

interviewed in a particular manner cannot be derived from Article 10

(Art. 10) of the Convention.  In this respect, the Commission recalls

that freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of

a democratic society which prevails throughout the Convention.  The

limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider with regard to a

politician acting in his public capacity than in relation to a private

individual.  The former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to

close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the

public at large, and he must display a greater degree of tolerance,

especially when he himself makes public statements that are susceptible

of criticism (see Eur. Court H.R., Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986,

Series A no. 103, p. 26, para. 42; Oberschlick judgment of 23 May 1991,

Series A no. 204, p. 26, paras. 58-59).

     The Commission also finds that with regard to interviews of

politicians it is in the interest of freedom of political debate that

the interviewing journalist may also express critical and provocative

points of view and not merely give neutral cues for the statements of

the interviewed person, since the latter can reply immediately.

     The Commission therefore finds that in the circumstances of the

present case there is no appearance of a violation of the applicant's

rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

4.   The applicant further complains about discrimination by the

Austrian authorities against him because of his status as politician

of the opposition.  He invokes Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

     The Commission finds that this complaint falls to be considered

under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 (Art. 14+10)of the

Convention.  However, having regard to the applicant's submissions and

all the material before it, the Commission finds that the applicant

failed to substantiate his allegation that in the exercise of his

rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the Austrian

authorities discriminated against him on the ground that he was a

politician of the opposition.

     It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

5.   Lastly he complains that because members of the Broadcasting

Supervisory Board were biased, he did not have an effective remedy

within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention for the

purpose of complaining about the violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of

the Convention.

     The Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention requires a remedy in domestic law only in respect of

grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the

Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Powell and Rayner judgment of

21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31).

     The Commission, having regard to the above findings as regards

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

considers that the applicant's submissions in this respect cannot be

considered as an arguable claim in terms of the Convention.  Moreover,

the Commission observes that the applicant could, and did, complain

about the Broadcasting Supervisory Board's decisions to the

Constitutional Court.  Consequently, there is no appearance of a

violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention in this respect.

     It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber

     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                        (C.L. ROZAKIS)