Information Note on the Court’s case-law 109

June 2008

Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia - 32283/04

Judgment 17.6.2008 [Section III]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom to impart information

Failure to state reasons for successive refusals to grant a television broadcasting licence: violation

Facts : The applicant company was formed in 1995 after an independent television company (A1+) set up by its founder had had its licence suspended by the authorities for refusing to broadcast only pro‑Government material in the run-up to the 1995 presidential elections. In January 1997 the applicant company was granted a five-year broadcasting licence and A1+ was relaunched within that structure. In October 2000 the Government brought in new legislation (the Television and Radio Broadcasting Act) establishing the National Television and Radio Commission (“the NTRC”), a public body composed of nine members appointed by the President of Armenia which was entrusted with the licensing and monitoring of private television and radio companies. The Act also introduced a new licensing procedure, whereby broadcasting licences were granted by the NTRC on the basis of calls for tenders. In February 2002 the NTRC announced calls for tenders for various broadcasting frequencies, including the band on which the first applicant operated. At a public hearing in April 2002 it awarded the tender to another company, without stating reasons. The applicant company subsequently made bids for seven other bands, but was unsuccessful on each occasion. Although it challenged the decisions in the courts its claims were dismissed on the grounds that the tender procedure had been carried out in accordance with domestic law.

Law : The NRTC’s refusal to grant the applicant company a broadcasting licence effectively amounted to an interference with its freedom to impart information and ideas. Although the Broadcasting Act defined the criteria on which the NTRC was to make its choice, it did not explicitly require it to give reasons, so that while the NTRC had held public hearings, it had not announced the reasons for its decisions. Consequently, neither the applicant company nor the public were aware of the basis on which the NTRC had exercised its discretion to refuse a licence. The Court noted that the Committee of Ministers’ guidelines on broadcasting regulations called for the open and transparent application of regulations governing licensing procedures and specifically recommended that all decisions taken by regulatory authorities should be duly reasoned. Likewise, in a Resolution of 27 January 2004 the Parliamentary Assembly had concluded that the NTRC had effectively been given outright discretionary powers as a result of the “vagueness of the law”. In the Court’s view, a procedure which did not require the licensing authority to give reasons for its decisions did not provide adequate protection against arbitrary interference by a public authority. The interference therefore failed to meet the Convention requirement of lawfulness.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes