Search
document

Document text Analytics

NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING V. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 13920/88 • ECHR ID: 001-928

Document date: July 11, 1991

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING V. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 13920/88 • ECHR ID: 001-928

Document date: July 11, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 13920/88

by NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 11 July 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission,

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 22 April 1988

by NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING against the Netherlands and

registered on 9 June 1988 under file No. 13920/88;

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, the Netherlands Broadcasting Programme

Foundation (Nederlandse Omroepprogramma Stichting) is a non-profit

cooperative foundation of all Dutch broadcasting organisations. It is

represented before the Commission by Mr. E.J. Dommering, a lawyer

practising in The Hague.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant's

representative, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant foundation, also on behalf of the other

broadcasting organisations, negotiates and makes agreements with

the Royal Dutch Football Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbal

Bond, KNVB) about the broadcasting on radio and television of football

matches.

On 1 August 1980, the KNVB summoned the applicant before the

Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam. On 14 April

1982, this Court gave, as requested by the KNVB, a declaratory

judgment (verklaring voor recht), authorising the KNVB to oppose the

broadcasting on television and radio of KNVB-organised football

matches, in the sense that the KNVB may request compensation in

exchange for its broadcasting permission. The broadcasting of

football matches by the applicant without the permission of the KNVB

would amount to an unlawful act in respect of the latter.

The applicant appealed against this ruling to the Amsterdam

Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) which, on 11 April 1985, partly rejected

it. The Court of Appeal made a distinction between merely informing

the public on the one hand, and extensively reporting on the match in

such a way that the public almost fully experiences the match, on the

other hand. Only in the latter respect did the Court of Appeal confirm

the judgment of the Regional Court.

On 10 July 1985, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.

On 23 October 1987 the Supreme Court rejected the distinction made by

the Court of Appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Regional Court.

The Supreme Court, inter alia, rejected the argument that this

ruling was in violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It held that

this provision did not mean that someone who withholds information

from the media acts thereby in violation thereof. The same applies,

according to the Supreme Court, if the organiser of a match or the

owner or user of a stadium (which is accessible to the public, who

pay an entrance fee) sets conditions for broadcasting, in particular

financial compensation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant foundation claims that the right of the KNVB, as

confirmed by the Supreme Court, to ask for financial compensation for

radio and television coverage of football matches which are held under

the auspices of the KNVB, is in violation of its right to receive and

impart information. It also alleges that this constitutes a

discrimination of broadcasting in relation to the print media. It

invokes Article 10 of the Convention, both taken alone and in

conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the obligation to pay financial

compensation for radio and television coverage of football matches

violates its right to receive and impart information. It invokes

Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), insofar as relevant, reads as

follows:

"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."

The Commission notes that the football matches referred to in

the present case are organised by a private organisation. Admission

is subject to conditions under private law. The question arises,

however, whether the respondent Government was obliged under Article

10 (Art. 10) of the Convention to ensure a right to free reporting of these

matches by radio and television.

The financing of football matches normally consists, to a

large extent, of fees paid by the general public attending the match.

Another important source of financing is, in many European countries,

money paid by the television and radio in order to obtain the

right to direct reporting of the match.

In these circumstances, it cannot be considered an

interference with the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by

Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention if the organiser of a match

limits the right to direct reporting of the match to those with whom

the organiser has concluded agreements on the conditions for such

reporting.

It follows that the present complaint is manifestly

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant foundation also complains that broadcasting

by radio and television is discriminated against in comparison to the

print media, because the latter are not required to pay any

compensation for the gathering of news. It invokes Article 14

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

of the Convention.

Article 14 (Art. 14) reads as follows:

"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."

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or

not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a

**violation of this provision as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies

have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of

international law.

In the present case the applicant failed to raise this

complaint before the Supreme Court and has, therefore, not exhausted

the remedies available to him under Dutch law. Moreover, an

examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special

circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to

the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting

the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the

condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part of

the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3)

of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant