CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 octobre 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        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)