CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 11 juillet 1991

.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. 13920/88                        by NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING                        against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 11 July 1991, the following members being present:                    MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                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 22 April 1988 by NEDERLANDSE OMROEPPROGRAMMA STICHTING against the Netherlands and registered on 9 June 1988 under file No. 13920/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows: THE FACTS           The applicant, the Netherlands Broadcasting Programme Foundation (Nederlandse Omroepprogramma Stichting) is a non-profit cooperative foundation of all Dutch broadcasting organisations.   It is represented before the Commission by Mr.   E.J. Dommering, a lawyer practising in The Hague.           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant's representative, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant foundation, also on behalf of the other broadcasting organisations, negotiates and makes agreements with the Royal Dutch Football Association (Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbal Bond, KNVB) about the broadcasting on radio and television of football matches.           On 1 August 1980, the KNVB summoned the applicant before the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam.   On 14 April 1982, this Court gave, as requested by the KNVB, a declaratory judgment (verklaring voor recht), authorising the KNVB to oppose the broadcasting on television and radio of KNVB-organised football matches, in the sense that the KNVB may request compensation in exchange for its broadcasting permission.   The broadcasting of football matches by the applicant without the permission of the KNVB would amount to an unlawful act in respect of the latter.           The applicant appealed against this ruling to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) which, on 11 April 1985, partly rejected it.   The Court of Appeal made a distinction between merely informing the public on the one hand, and extensively reporting on the match in such a way that the public almost fully experiences the match, on the other hand.   Only in the latter respect did the Court of Appeal confirm the judgment of the Regional Court.           On 10 July 1985, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. On 23 October 1987 the Supreme Court rejected the distinction made by the Court of Appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Regional Court. The Supreme Court, inter alia, rejected the argument that this ruling was in violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   It held that this provision did not mean that someone who withholds information from the media acts thereby in violation thereof.   The same applies, according to the Supreme Court, if the organiser of a match or the owner or user of a stadium (which is accessible to the public, who pay an entrance fee) sets conditions for broadcasting, in particular financial compensation.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant foundation claims that the right of the KNVB, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, to ask for financial compensation for radio and television coverage of football matches which are held under the auspices of the KNVB, is in violation of its right to receive and impart information.   It also alleges that this constitutes a discrimination of broadcasting in relation to the print media.   It invokes Article 10 of the Convention, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that the obligation to pay financial compensation for radio and television coverage of football matches violates its right to receive and impart information.   It invokes Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.           Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), insofar as relevant, reads as follows:   "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.   This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."           The Commission notes that the football matches referred to in the present case are organised by a private organisation.   Admission is subject to conditions under private law.   The question arises, however, whether the respondent Government was obliged under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention to ensure a right to free reporting of these matches by radio and television.           The financing of football matches normally consists, to a large extent, of fees paid by the general public attending the match. Another important source of financing is, in many European countries, money paid by the television and radio in order to obtain the right to direct reporting of the match.           In these circumstances, it cannot be considered an interference with the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention if the organiser of a match limits the right to direct reporting of the match to those with whom the organiser has concluded agreements on the conditions for such reporting.           It follows that the present complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant foundation also complains that broadcasting by radio and television is discriminated against in comparison to the print media, because the latter are not required to pay any compensation for the gathering of news.   It invokes Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.           Article 14 (Art. 14) reads as follows:   "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."           However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a **violation of this provision as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law.           In the present case the applicant failed to raise this complaint before the Supreme Court and has, therefore, not exhausted the remedies available to him under   Dutch law.   Moreover, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.           It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission           (H. C. KRÜGER)                               (C. A. NØRGAARD)