LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA, JÖRG HAIDER, AKTIONSGEMEINSCHAFT OFFENES RADIO (AGORA), WILHELM WEBER AND RADIO MELODY Ges.m.b.H. v. AUSTRIACONCURRING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: September 9, 1992
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
INFORMATIONSVEREIN LENTIA, JÖRG HAIDER, AKTIONSGEMEINSCHAFT OFFENES RADIO (AGORA), WILHELM WEBER AND RADIO MELODY Ges.m.b.H. v. AUSTRIACONCURRING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: September 9, 1992
Cited paragraphs only
CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES
Although I agree with all the conclusions of the Commission, my
approach as regards the violations of Article 10 of the Convention in
these cases is as follows:
The right to freedom of expression and in particular freedom to
impart information and ideas cannot be meaningful in a modern
democratic society if the use of mass media of communication, such as
broadcasting, is blocked through a system of monopoly of such media.
Therefore I believe that the state broadcasting monopoly in Austria,
which led to the refusal of broadcasting licences to the applicants is
per se incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. The more so as
such monopoly, being in the hands of the State, implies of necessity
an interference by "public authority" in respect of the rights in
question contrary to the express provisions of Article 10.
The object and effect of the third sentence of para. 1 of
Article 10 is not to allow monopolies but simply to permit States to
regulate through a licensing system the use of broadcasting, television
and cinema enterprises in line with the provisions of para. 2 of the
same Article, in view of the importance of these media of communication
and the inherent technical difficulties that would arise from an
unlimited use of such media. The licensing system in question by
itself implies the exclusion of monopolies. Licensing means regulation
and regulation cannot amount to suppression.
In the present case the only reason for refusing broadcasting
licences to the applicants was the existence of the State broadcasting
monopoly. Therefore such refusal was in my opinion an unjustified
interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 of the
Convention.
APPENDIX I
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
_________________________________________________________________
16 April 1987 Introduction of Application No. 13914/88
15 May 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15041/89
27 September 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15717/89
18 September 1989 Introduction of Application No. 15779/89
20 August 1990 Introduction of Application No. 17207/90
3 June 1988 Registration of Application No. 13914/88
23 May 1989 Registration of Application No. 15041/89
30 October 1989 Registration of Application No. 15717/89
20 November 1989 Registration of Application No. 15779/89
26 September 1990 Registration of Application No. 17207/90
Examination of Admissibility
13 July 1990 Commission's decision to join Applications
Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89 and to
invite the Government to submit observations on
the admissibility and merits of these
applications and of Application No. 13914/88
12 July 1991 Commission's decision to invite the Government
to submit observations on the admissibility and
merits of Application No. 17207/90
14 November 1990 Government's observations on Application
No. 13914/88
15 November 1990 Government's observations on Applications
Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89
2 October 1991 Government's observations on Application
No. 17207/90
29 January 1991 Applicant's observations in reply of
No. 15717/89
27 February 1991 Applicants' observations in reply of
Nos. 15041/89 and 15779/89
15 May 1991 Applicant's observations in reply of
No. 13914/88
8 November 1991 Applicant's observations in reply of
No. 17207/90
Date Item
_________________________________________________________________
3 September 1991 Commission's decision to hold an oral hearing
6 December 1991 Commission's decision to include Application
No. 17207/90 in hearing
14 January 1992 Commission's decision to join all five cases
15 January 1992 Oral hearing on admissibility and merits,
Commission's decision to declare:
- inadmissible the fifth applicant's complaint
under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
- admissible Application No. 15041/89 and the
remainders of Applications Nos. 13914/88,
15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90
Examination of the merits
16 May 1992 Commission's consideration of the state of
proceedings
1 September 1992 Commission's deliberations on the merits and
final vote
9 September 1992 Commission's deliberations and adoption of the
Report
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
