Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12439/86

by Lennart Sundberg

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 15 October 1987 the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 18 July 1986 by

Mr. Lennart Sundberg against Sweden and registered on 6 October 1986

under file N° 12439/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's

submissions, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1952 and resident

in Malmö.

In December 1981 the applicant contacted the District Office

of the Swedish National Radio Company (Sveriges Riksradio Aktiebolag)

and explained that he was interested in producing a radio programme.

He received in reply information about the Tape Work Shop (Bandverkstan)

of the Swedish Radio. The information stated that the conditions for

making a radio programme were, inter alia, that the programme was

suitable for radio, that the proposal did not involve unreasonable

undertakings, that no individual, who could not defend himself, was

attacked, and that the programme had to be accepted before being

broadcast.

The applicant proposed and produced a programme called "Live

well with an unegoistic economy". The programme was supposed to last

60 minutes and contain the following elements:

how shall the welfare be secured to everybody and forever in

spite of the oil?

how does historical new-thinking make welfare possible for

everybody and forever and solve the oil problem?

how does unegoistic economy win over capitalism, socialism

and mixed economy in spite of egoism?

how does democracy win lasting peace for everybody and

forever?

how will welfare function for everybody and forever?

On 1 February 1982 he received a reply according to which the

Work Shop declined to broadcast his programme. It was stated in the

reply that the radio was not a suitable medium for the presentation of

such material. It was too abstract and too "compact" for the

audience. The applicant made a new or revised programme which was

called "Lennart Sundberg's crisis recipe". Also this programme was

not accepted by the representatives of the Swedish Radio. Following a

further exchange of letters, the applicant received a letter from the

Swedish Radio in which it was said that the Swedish Radio had the

right under the Radio Act (radiolagen) to decide independently which

programmes were to be produced and broadcast, which was said to imply

that the Radio could reject programmes for various reasons without

this being contrary to the freedom of expression or any laws.

The applicant, considering that the Swedish National Radio

Company had refused to broadcast his programme on subjective and

partial grounds, introduced a court action against the company

claiming compensation. The Malmö District Court (tingsrätt) delivered

judgment on 15 February 1984. As the company had accepted to pay him

400 SEK as a contribution towards his costs for the programme, the

Court made an order for the payment of this sum, but his other claims,

inter alia, a claim for non-pecuniary damage of 3 million SEK and a

claim that the programme be broadcast, were rejected. In its reasons

the Court stated the following as an introduction:

"First it may be established that no 'radio freedom'

in the same meaning as freedom of the press (tryckfrihet)

exists under Swedish law. There is no right for everybody

to express opinions on the radio. The broadcasting of radio

and television is entrusted to four programme companies,

one of which is responsible for the national radio. Under

Section 5 para. 2 of the Radio Act every programme company

decides on its own inter alia on the programmes to be broadcast

on the radio. This right should, according to Section 6 para. 1

of the Radio Act, be exercised impartially and objectively.

The last-mentioned provision is not subject to any sanction

in the Radio Act. The way State influence is exercised - apart

from the right to appoint certain members of the board of

the mother company of the programme companies - is by means of

a private contract which under Sections 5 and 6 is concluded

between the Government and the respective programme company.

This contract contains inter alia certain indications of the

nature of the programme policy. In the contract which is now

applicable between the Government and the Swedish Radio

Section 22 provides inter alia the following. If there

is reason to believe that the Swedish Radio has to a

considerable extent violated Section 6 of the Radio Act or

this contract, the State may request an investigation of the

question by investigators appointed according to the Act on

Arbitrators (lagen om skiljemän). An individual has no

right to complain about possible violations of what is

provided for in the above-mentioned contract about choice

of programmes."

The applicant appealed to the Scania and Blekinge Court of

Appeal (hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge) which, in a judgment of

28 June 1985, confirmed the judgment of the District Court.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen)

which, on 16 May 1986, refused leave to appeal. The applicant also

claimed compensation from the State before the Supreme Court. This

claim was rejected by the Supreme Court on 16 May 1986.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant makes numerous complaints and alleges violations

of Articles 1, 3, 4 para. 2, Article 5 paras. 1, 4 and 5 as well as

Articles 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of

Protocol No. 1. He submits inter alia that the refusal of Sweden to

allow him to broadcast his radio programme was an arbitrary measure by

the national radio monopoly. The result is that his own and

everybody's rights have been violated.

THE LAW

The applicant complains inter alia that the Swedish National

Radio Company has refused to broadcast his programme. He invokes Articles 1,

3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14 (Art. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14) of the

Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3).

In a previous case against Sweden (No. 9297/81, Dec. 1.3.82,

D.R. 28 p. 204) the Commission stated:

"It is true that Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention guarantees to

everyone the right to freedom of expression and that this

right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and

impart information and ideas without interference by any

public authority. However, it is also provided that Article

10 (Art. 10) does not prevent a State from requiring the licensing of

broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. This last-

mentioned provision does of course imply that for practical

reasons the first-mentioned rights will be of a more limited

scope in a State which requires licensing of radio and

television. It should however be noted that a State that

establishes a system requiring licensing has special duties

to ensure that the rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention

remain protected."

In an earlier decision (No. 4515/70, Dec. 12.7.71, Yearbook

14 p. 538) the Commission stated as follows:

"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 or

television in order to forward its opinion. On the other

hand, 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 (Art. 10) alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 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."

The Commission finds no indication, on the facts of the case,

that the refusal to let the applicant broadcast his programmes on the

Swedish Radio was based on grounds which could be regarded as

arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise contrary to the requirements of

objectivity and impartiality. In these circumstances, the Commission

considers that the refusal cannot be regarded as having had such a purpose or

such an effect as could raise an issue under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention.

The Commission, noting that the applicant's action against the

Swedish Radio was examined by the District Court, the Court of Appeal

and the Supreme Court, finds no appearance of a violation of any of

the other provisions invoked by the applicant.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded

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

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

SUNDBERG v. SWEDEN

SUNDBERG v. SWEDEN