CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE. BONELLO

Together with the majority, I found no violation of Article 10 in  relation to the second period (1 August 1996 to 1 July 1997).  I concur that in the present case the negative impact on freedom of expression of ORF’s monopoly on terrestrial television was almost counteracted by the existence, in that period, of a viable alternative in the form of cable television.  The file contains little evidence that the establishment and operation of a cable network lays a disproportionate onus on the broadcaster, or that a link-up with, and subscription to, cable broadcasting constituted a significant financial burden to the subscriber.

My view would have been considerably different were it to be demonstrated  that costs to the broadcaster and the viewer are substantially more onerous for cable television than for terrestrial television.  Of the constitutive elements of free circulation of ideas and information I hold the following to be among those paramount: (a)  that, generally, no one shall be put to a disadvantage (financial or otherwise) to others imparting or receiving similar ideas or information; and (b) that the pernicious effects of a media monopoly can only be properly neutralised  by the existence of easily accessible alternatives which weight the viewer with no heavier millstone than that imposed by the monopoly.

In conditions of equality of arms between conventional  and cable television, the protection of Article 10 does not agonise unduly.  I would have voted for a violation had the alternative only been available as entertainment for plutocrats.