CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 février 1992

.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. 17227/90 by RÖDA KORSETS UNGDOMSFÖRBUND, GNESTA and MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET, TROSA-VAGNHÄRAD against Sweden     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 February 1992, the following members being present:   MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President S. TRECHSEL G. SPERDUTI E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK A. WEITZEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS H. DANELIUS Mrs.G. H. THUNE SirBasil HALL MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ C.L. ROZAKIS Mrs.J. LIDDY MM.L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   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 30 July 1990 by RÖDA KORSETS UNGDOMSFÖRBUND, GNESTA and MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET, TROSA-VAGNHÄRAD against Sweden and registered on 27 September 1990 under file No. 17227/90;   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 first applicant is the local youth section of a non-profit association, and the second applicant is the local section of a political party. Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. Percy Bratt, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   A local radio transmitter at Vagnhärad/Nyköping is run by a non- profit association, Ö.S. The applicants, with other non-profit associations, are members of Ö.S. and were licenced to broadcast local radio over the transmitter.   Through the press and by several letters from Ö.S. to the Local Radio Board (närradionämnden), it had come to the knowledge of the Board that Ö.S. intended to broadcast commercial advertising over the transmitter at Vagnhärad/Nyköping.   By letter of 25 June 1990 the Local Radio Board informed all the organisations in possession of a licence to broadcast local radio over the transmitter in question, that the secretariat of the Board had registered radio programmes containing commercials on 20 and 21 June 1990. In the letter the Board advised that commercial advertising was prohibited according to Section 10 of the Local Radio Act (närradiolagen) and that therefore the licences of the organisations responsible might be withdrawn in accordance with Section 13 of the same Act. Furthermore, the Local Radio Board invited the associations to submit their written observations on the matter at the latest on 3 July 1990 or orally to the Board at its meeting on 5 July 1990, at which the question of a withdrawal of the broadcasting licences was to be examined.   By letter of 26 June 1990 the applicants, represented by Ö.S., requested an extension of the time-limit for their reply until mid- August 1990 in order to be able to contact a legal adviser and to prepare their observations.   The Local Radio Board, by letter of 2 July 1990, informed the applicants that their request for an extension of the time-limit was not granted. Furthermore, the Board informed the applicants that on 1 July 1990 it had registered more commercials broadcast over the transmitter at Vagnhärad/Nyköping and that it intended to examine these also at the meeting on 5 July 1990. The Board invited the applicants to submit written observations before the start of the meeting or orally at the meeting.   On 5 July 1990 the Local Radio Board held the meeting at which three persons, representing Ö.S., and the applicants were present.   The applicants again requested an extension of the time-limit in order to find a lawyer and to prepare their observations. After deliberations in camera, the Board rejected the request as it found that it had sufficient information for making a decision in the case.   The Local Radio Board accordingly continued the meeting. The applicants, through their representatives, argued in the main issue that the licences should not be withdrawn as the prohibition against broadcasting commercials was incompatible with the Instrument of Government (regeringsformen) and with the European Convention on Human Rights.     After deliberations in camera, the Local Radio Board decided to withdraw the applicants' licences to broadcast for one year. It found that the applicants deliberately and systematically had infringed the prohibition to broadcast commercials. It stated that the prohibition as such was not incompatible with the Instrument of Government or any other Swedish legislation.   The applicants appealed against the decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm, requesting that the decision of the Local Radio Board be quashed with immediate effect.   In a decision of 17 July 1990 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the request immediately to quash the Local Radio Board's decision.   The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which on 27 July 1990 refused leave to appeal.   During the continuing proceedings before the Administrative Court of Appeal the applicants were represented by the same lawyer as before the Commission. In two petitions (16 and 4 pages, respectively) to the Court they argued that the prohibition against broadcasting commercials in the Local Radio Act was incompatible with the Instrument of Government and with the European Convention on Human Rights.   By judgment of 1 October 1990 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Local Radio Board, giving the following reasons:   (translation)   "The prohibition in the Local Radio Act against broadcasting commercials has been considered [by the Supreme Administrative Court] not to be incompatible with Chapter 2, Sections 12 and 13, of the Instrument of Government; the prohibition has not on any other ground been considered incompatible with Swedish law (RÅ 1983 2:5). The European Convention on Human Rights is not directly applicable in the Swedish legal system. Taking this into consideration, the Administrative Court of Appeal cannot legally set aside the prohibition on commercial advertising.   It is not in dispute that the broadcasts at issue have contained commercial advertising.   As to the question of which measures are suitable in view of the violations of the prohibition, the Court finds that a withdrawal of the permits is the only available measure. As [the applicants] infringed the prohibition on purpose, the period for the withdrawal, as decided by the Local Radio Board, should not be changed."   The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which on 31 January 1991 refused leave to appeal.     COMPLAINTS   The applicants complain that they did not get a fair hearing, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention, as the Local Radio Board did not grant them an extension of the time-limit in order to enable them to obtain legal advice and to prepare their observations.     THE LAW   The applicants complain that they did not get a fair hearing as the Local Radio Board did not grant them sufficient time to prepare their observations. They invoke Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (b) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-b) which in their relevant parts read as follows:   "1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ... 3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; ..."   The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention only applies to proceedings in which a determination of civil rights and obligations or of a criminal charge is at issue.   The proceedings in the present case did not concern the determination of a criminal charge. Accordingly, in so far as the applicants invoke Article 6 para. 3 (b) (Art. 6-3-b) of the Convention, this part of the application is inadmissible as being incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae.   As regards the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the Commission does not find it necessary to determine whether the withdrawal of a licence to broadcast local radio concerns a civil right, because even assuming this to be the case, the complaint is inadmissible for the following reasons.   According to constant case-law Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not oblige States to submit "contestations" over civil rights and obligations to a judicial procedure which at each stage conforms with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. It may be sufficient that administrative or professional bodies determine the dispute at first instance, provided that their decisions are subject to review thereafter by a judicial procedure which satisfies the conditions of Article 6 (Art. 6) (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 22 and 23, para. 51, and Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 21 and 22, para. 56).   The Commission notes that the decision of the Local Radio Board was subject to review by the Administrative Court of Appeal, which also was the last national instance to determine both the questions of facts -which were not in dispute - and the legal issues.   In order to comply with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention it was   accordingly sufficient in the present case that the examination of the issue in question by the Administrative Court of Appeal met the requirements set out in that Article. The applicants' complaint is only directed against the proceedings at the Local Radio Board; it is not alleged that the subsequent court proceedings failed to comply with the requirements set out in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In these circumstances the Commission finds that, considering the proceedings as a whole, the applicants received a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   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, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.        Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)