CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 septembre 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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                    APPLICATIONS Nos. 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89 and 17207/90   Informationsverein Lentia, Jörg Haider, Aktionsgemeinschaft Offenes Radio (AGORA), Wilhelm Weber and Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H.                                   against                                   Austria                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 9 September 1992)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The applications            (paras. 2 - 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 8 - 22). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 23 - 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 28 - 47). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 28 - 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4              a.     Informationsverein Lentia                  (Application No. 13914/88)                  (paras. 28 - 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4              b.     Mr. J. Haider (Application No. 15041/89)                  (para. 37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5              c.     AGORA (Application No. 15717/89)                  (paras. 38 - 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              d.     Mr. W. Weber (Application No. 15779/89)                  (para. 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              e.     Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H.                  (Application No. 17207/90)                  (para. 41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 42 - 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              a.     Telecommunications Act (1949)                  (para. 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              b.     Private Telecommunications Installations                  Ordinance (1961)                  (para. 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7              c.     Constitutional Broadcasting Act (1974)                  (para. 44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7              d.     Broadcasting Corporation Act (1974)                  (paras. 45 - 47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras.   48 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         B.    Points at issue            (para. 49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9         C.    Article 10 of the Convention            (paras. 50 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9              a.     Interference with the applicants' rights                  under Article 10 para. 1                  (paras. 52 - 63) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10              b.     Relevance of Article 10, para. 1, third                  sentence                  (paras. 64 - 66) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12              c.     Justification of this interference under                  Article 10 para. 2                  (paras. 67 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    aa)   Was the interference "prescribed by law"                       (Article 10 para. 2)?                       (paras. 67 - 71). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12                    bb)   Aim of the interference                       (paras. 72 - 74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13                    cc)   Necessity of the interference                       (paras. 75 - 89). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13              Conclusion            (paras. 88 - 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15         D.    Article 14 of the Convention taken together with            Article 10            (paras. 90 - 95) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15              Conclusion            (paras. 94 - 95) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16         E.    Recapitulation            (paras. 96 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION of Sir Basil HALL . . . . . . . . . . . .17   CONCURRING OPINION of Mr. L. LOUCAIDES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19   APPENDIX I:       HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20   APPENDIX II:      DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . .22                              I.   INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The applications   2.     The first applicant, Informationsverein Lentia, is a private association established at Linz in Upper Austria.   Before the Commission it is represented by Mr. B. Binder, a lawyer practising in Linz.   3.     The second applicant, Mr. J. Haider, is an Austrian citizen residing at Klagenfurt in Carinthia.   He is the Chairman of the Austrian Liberal Party (FPÖ) and Deputy Governor of Carinthia.   He is represented by Messrs. D. Böhmdorfer and W. Themmer, lawyers practising in Vienna.   4.     The third applicant, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Offenes Radio (AGORA), is a private association established at Eisenkappel in Carinthia.   It is represented by Mr. Th. Höhne, a lawyer practising in Vienna.   5.     The fourth applicant, Mr. W. Weber, is an Austrian citizen born in 1941 who resides at St. Andrä in Lavanttal in Carinthia.   He is also represented by Messrs. D. Böhmdorfer and W. Themmer.   6.     The fifth applicant, Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H., is a limited liability company established and registered in Salzburg.   It is represented by Mr. Wilfried Haslauer, a lawyer practising in Salzburg.   7.     The case concerns the applicants' complaints under Article 10 of the Convention that the Austrian broadcasting system does not envisage any licensing procedure for private radio or television stations. Under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 10 the first applicant further complains that it is being treated differently from other institutions employing internal cable television systems. Also under Article 14 taken together with Article 10 the third applicant complains that the restrictions in the broadcasting system constitute a discrimination against the Slovene minority in Carinthia.   B.     The proceedings   8.     Application No. 13914/88 was introduced on 16 April 1987 and registered on 3 June 1988.   9.     Application No. 15041/89 was introduced on 15 May 1989 and registered on 23 May 1989.   10.    Application No. 15717/89 was introduced on 27 September 1989 and registered on 30 October 1989.   11.    Application No. 15779/89 was introduced on 18 September 1989 and registered on 20 November 1989.   12.    On 13 July 1990 the Commission joined the proceedings in Applications Nos. 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89 and gave notice of these three applications and of Application No. 13914/88 to the respondent Government who were invited to submit observations in writing on their admissibility and merits before 31 October 1990.   13.    After having being granted an extension of the time-limit, the Government's observations on Application No. 13914/88 were submitted on 14 November, those on the other three applications on 15 November 1990.   14.    The applicants were invited to submit observations in reply before 31 January 1991.   The third applicant submitted observations on 29 January 1991.   The second and fourth applicants submitted their observations, after having been granted an extension of the time-limit, on 27 February 1991.   The first applicant, after having been reminded by the Commission's Secretariat that no observations had been received within the time-limit, eventually submitted observations on 15 May 1991.   15.    In the meantime Application No. 17207/90 was introduced on 20 August 1990 and registered on 26 September 1990.   16.    On 12 July 1991 the Commission also gave notice of this application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit observations in writing on its admissibility and merits before 1 October 1991.   17.    The Government submitted their observations on this application on 2 October 1991 and the applicant replied on 8 November 1991.   18.    In the meantime the Commission decided on 3 September 1991 to invite the parties in Applications Nos. 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89 and 15779/89 to an oral hearing on the admissibility and merits.   On 6 December 1991 the Commission included Application No. 17207/90 in the hearing.   19.    On 14 January 1992 the Commission decided to join all five cases.   20.    The hearing took place on 15 January 1992.   At the hearing, the Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. H. Türk, who was assisted by Mrs. S. Bernegger, of the Federal Chancellery, and Mr. R. Fischer-See, of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation as advisers.   The applicants were represented as follows: the first applicant by Mr. G. Lehner, a lawyer practising in Linz; the second applicant, who was present himself, by Mr. D. Böhmdorfer, assisted by Mrs. S. Riess, Mr. W. Meischberger and Mr. P. Westenthaler as advisers; the third applicant, whose President, Mrs. B. Busch, and a member of the Governing Board, Mr. V. Wakounig, were present, by Mr. Th. Höhne; the fourth applicant by Mr. D. Böhmdorfer assisted by Mr. W. Dillenz, Adviser; the fifth applicant by Mr. W. Haslauer.   Mr. H. Tretter of the University of Vienna acted as adviser for the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants.   21.    On 15 January 1992 the Commission declared the applications admissible with regard to the applicants' complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, and under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 10.   22.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Consultations with the parties took place between 19 February and 20 May 1992.   The Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   23.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                     MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   J. C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   C. L. ROZAKIS              Mrs. J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M. P. PELLONPÄÄ   24.    The text of this Report was adopted on 9 September 1992 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   25.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)     to establish the facts, and   ii)    to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a       breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the       Convention.   26.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications as Appendix II.   27.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.                       II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the case   a.     Informationsverein Lentia (Application No. 13914/88)   28.    The applicant association was founded by the joint owners and inhabitants in Linz of a residential development comprising some 450 apartments and 30 shops.   In order to improve communication between the members, the applicant sought to establish an internal cable television system, the programme of which was to be limited to questions of common concern relating to the members' property rights.   29.    On 9 June 1978 the applicant applied to the Linz Regional Direction of Post and Telecommunications (Post- und Telegraphendirektion) for a licence under the Telecommunications Act (Fernmeldegesetz).   As no decision was taken within the time-limit of six months stipulated in Section 73 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), the applicant requested a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolution) to the General Direction of Post and Telecommunications of the Federal Ministry of Transport   (Generaldirektion für die Post- und Telegraphenverwaltung des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr).   30.    On 23 November 1979 the Ministry rejected the request.   The decision stated that the Federal Constitutional Act for Securing the Independence of Broadcasting (Bundesverfassungsgesetz über die Sicherung der Unabhängigkeit des Rundfunks, hereafter referred to as Constitutional Broadcasting Act) had reserved to the federal legislation the regulation of broadcasting and its organisation. Broadcasting could therefore only take place on the basis of a special federal law.   Such a federal law only existed for the public Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (Österreichischer Rundfunk, ORF) according to the Federal Law on the Functions and the Organisation of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (Bundesgesetz über die Aufgaben und die Einrichtung des Österreichischen Rundfunks).   It followed that there was no legal basis for the applicant's request to establish a private broadcasting station for television.   31.    With regard to Article 10 of the Convention, the Ministry considered that the Austrian legislature had made use of the authorisation under the third sentence of para. 1 of this provision to require the licensing of broadcasting enterprises by envisaging the enactment of special legislation for the operation of any broadcasting station.   32.    The applicant's constitutional complaint against this decision was rejected by the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on 16 December 1983.   The Court considered with reference to Article 10 of the Convention that an administrative decision violated the right to operate a broadcasting station if it was taken without a legal basis, if the applicable law was unconstitutional, or if it was applied in an arbitrary manner.   The contested decision had not interpreted the Constitutional Broadcasting Act arbitrarily.   The aim of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act was to introduce a licensing requirement within the meaning of Article 10, para. 1, last sentence. This aim could not be achieved if, in the absence of legislation, everybody was entitled freely to broadcast.   So far, a law had only been enacted for the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation. It followed "that only the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation <otherwise nobody> could operate broadcasting within the meaning of Section 1 para. 1 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act" ("dass Rundfunk iS des Art. I Abs. 1 BVG-Rundfunk derzeit nur vom ORF <sonst von niemandem> betrieben werden darf").   33.    In the Court's opinion, the applicant's view was misconceived that its cable television system was not to be qualified as broadcasting because it was addressed to a limited audience. Broadcasting included active cable broadcasting which therefore fell within the scope of the Constitutional Law and its implementing legislation.   The persons who received the programme were not predetermined and individualised, they were potentially all people present in many apartments and shops and therefore constituted a general public.   34.    The Court noted that under the Telecommunications Act and the Ordinance on Private Telecommunication Installations (Privatfernmelde- anlagenverordnung) the telecommunications authorities were competent to grant broadcasting licences.   On the other hand, the Constitutional Broadcasting Act did not contain express provisions on the application of the broadcasting legislation by those authorities.   In the Court's view, the Constitutional Broadcasting Act was to be applied by all authorities which could influence the operation of broadcasts.   Thus, the Telecommunications Act and the Ordinance on Private Telecommunication Installations were to be read subject to the proviso that an authorisation for the setting-up and operation of broadcasting installations could not be granted by the authorities before a federal law on the subject had been enacted in accordance with Article I para. 2 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act.   35.    The Constitutional Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention nor of any other constitutional provision.   It referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) as requested by the applicant association.   36.    The Administrative Court rejected the applicant's complaint on 10 September 1986.   The decision confirmed the views expressed by the Constitutional Court.   It considered that the Telecommunications Act could not be seen as a special law referred to by the Constitutional Broadcasting Act.   The authorities were required to comply with Article 18 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution (Bundesverfassungsgesetz) according to which all administrative acts could be taken only on the basis of the law, and to examine in this context whether the provisions of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act created an obstacle for granting the authorisation requested.   Neither the Telecommunications Act nor any other legal provision granted the applicant a right to this authorisation.   Its refusal was not unlawful, and the reasons given were neither self-contradictory nor insufficient.   b.     Mr. J. Haider (Application No. 15041/89)   37.    Between 1987 and 1989 the applicant had plans to establish jointly with others a private radio station in Carinthia.   However, an examination of the legal situation in Austria revealed that the granting of a radio licence was excluded by the Austrian legislation as interpreted by the Constitutional Court.   Thus, the plans to establish a radio station were abandoned, and the applicant did not take any domestic proceedings.   c.     AGORA (Application No. 15717/89)   38.    The applicant, a member of the Fédération européenne des radios libres (FERL), wishes to establish a radio station in Carinthia which would transmit a multilingual non-commercial programme financed by listeners.   A target group would be the bilingual area of Southern Carinthia, and the programmes would be broadcast in German and Slovene. The proponents of this radio station already operate a mobile station on Italian territory on the basis of an Italian radio licence.   39.    In 1988 the applicant applied for a licence for a private radio station.   On 19 December 1989 the Klagenfurt Regional Direction of Post and Telecommunications rejected the application.   This decision was confirmed on 30 September 1991 by the General Direction of Post and Telecommunications of the Federal Ministry for Public Economy and Transport (Generaldirektion für die Post- und Telegraphenverwaltung des Bundesministeriums für öffentliche Wirtschaft und Verkehr), and on 30 September 1991 by the Constitutional Court which thereby relied on its earlier case-law (see above, paras. 32 et seq.).   d.     Mr. W. Weber (Application No. 15779/89)   40.    The applicant is the shareholder of an Italian company which operates a private radio station in Italy transmitting broadcasts to Austria on a commercial basis.   He wishes to operate such a radio station himself on Austrian territory.   In view of the Austrian legislation and its interpretation by the Constitutional Court the applicant did not institute proceedings in order to apply for a radio licence.   e.     Radio Melody Ges.m.b.H. (Application No. 17207/90)   41.    The applicant applied on 8 November 1988 for a licence and the attribution of a frequency band in order to operate a private local radio station in Salzburg.   On 28 April 1989 the Linz Regional Direction of Post and Telecommunications rejected the application.   Its decision was confirmed on 12 July 1989 by the General Direction of Post and Telecommunications of the Federal Ministry for Public Economy and Transport, and on 18 June 1990 by the Constitutional Court which thereby relied on its earlier case-law (see above, paras. 32 et seq.).   B.     Relevant domestic law   a.     Telecommunications Act (1949)   42.    According to Section 2 para. 1 of the Telecommunications Act of 1949 (Fernmeldegesetz), "the right to set up and operate telecommunications installations falls exclusively to the Federation" ("Das Recht, Fernmeldeanlagen zu errichten und zu betreiben steht ausschliesslich dem Bunde zu").   Section 3 envisages the authorisation for private persons or institutions (physische oder juristische Personen) to set up and operate broadcasting installations.   Section 5 lists instances where broadcasting installations may be set up without authorisation, for instance within the boundaries of a private property.   b.     Private Telecommunication Installations Ordinance (1961)   43.    The Ordinance on Private Telecommunication Installations of 1961 (Verordnung über Privatfernmeldeanlagen) concerns all broadcasting installations which, on the basis of the Telecommunications Act, are subject to Federal supervision (Section 1).   The Ordinance states inter alia the conditions for the setting up and operation of private broadcasting installations.   However, according to the decisions of the Austrian courts and administrative authorities, these provisions cannot constitute the basis for granting licences to private applicants.   c.     Constitutional Broadcasting Act (1974)   44.    Section 1 para. 1 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act of 1974 (Bundesverfassungsgesetz über die Sicherung der Unabhängigkeit des Rundfunks) gives a definition of broadcasting which includes the transmission of word, sound and images (Wort, Ton und Bild).   Paras. 2 and 3 provide:         <Translation>         "(2) More detailed provisions for broadcasting, and its       organisation, are to be determined by Federal Act.   Such a       Federal Act must in particular contain special provisions       ensuring the objectivity and impartiality of reporting, the       diversity of opinions, balanced programmes and the independence       of persons and organs charged with the duties stated in para. 1.         (3) Broadcasting according to para. 1 is a public service."         <Original>         "(2) Die näheren Bestimmungen für den Rundfunk und seine       Organisation sind bundesgesetzlich festzulegen.   Ein solches       Bundesgesetz hat insbesondere Bestimmungen zu enthalten, die die       Objektivität und Unparteilichkeit der Berichterstattung, die       Berücksichtigung der Meinungsvielfalt, die Ausgewogenheit der       Programme sowie die Unabhängigkeit der Personen und Organe, die       mit der Besorgung der im Abs. 1 genannten Aufgaben betraut sind,       gewährleisten.         (3)   Rundfunk gemäss Abs. 1 ist eine öffentliche Aufgabe."   d.     Broadcasting Corporation Act (1974)   45.    The Federal Law on the Functions and the Organisation of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation of 1974 (Bundesgesetz über die Aufgaben und die Einrichtung des Österreichischen Rundfunks) sets up the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation as an economic unit with legal personality entrusted with the function of supplying the public with broadcasts.   46.    The broadcasts must comply with   certain criteria.   Apart from those mentioned in the Constitutional Broadcasting Act (see above, para. 44), they include, for instance, with regard to the number and quality of programmes, an even and steady supply to the whole population in Austria, according to current technical standards of reception in so far as economically feasible, with at least two television and three radio programmes (Section 3 para. 1), one of the latter being a regional programme which takes into consideration the particular interests of the Provinces (Section 3 para. 2).   The programmes must inform the public comprehensively of all important political, economic, cultural and sports events by objective selection and dissemination of news and reports and must transmit and convey comments, opinions and critical statements of importance for the public having due regard to the plurality of views represented in public discussions (Section 2 para. 1, sub-para. 1).   Broadcasting time must be provided to political parties represented in Parliament as well as to interest groups (Section 5 para. 1).   47.    The Broadcasting Corporation Act furthermore institutes a "Commission for Safeguarding Observance of the Broadcasting Corporation Act" ("Kommission zur Wahrung des Rundfunkgesetzes").   It exercises a certain control over the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, in so far as the matter does not come within the jurisdiction of a court of law or an administrative authority.   In particular, it decides on alleged violations of the Broadcasting Corporation Act.   The Commission is composed of 17 members appointed by the Federal President upon proposals of the Federal Government for a period of four years.                       III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   48.    The following complaints were declared admissible:   -      under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the applicants' complaints that the Austrian broadcasting system does not envisage any licensing procedure for private broadcasting stations;   -      under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with Article 10 (Art. 10) the first applicant's complaint that it is being treated differently from other institutions employing internal cable television systems;   -      under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with Article 10 (Art. 10) the third applicant's complaint that the restrictions in the broadcasting system constitute a discrimination against the Slovene minority in Carinthia.   B.     Points at issue   49.    Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:   -      whether, with regard to all applicants, there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention;   -      whether, with regard to the first and third applicants, there has been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with Article 10 (Art. 10).   C.     Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   50.    The applicants complain that contrary to Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention they are unable to obtain licences in Austria for private radio stations or, in the case of the first applicant, for a private cable television system.   They observe that under Austrian constitutional law the operation of broadcasting stations is not as such inadmissible, but since implementing legislation has been enacted only in respect of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation there exists in fact a monopoly of this Corporation.   In the applicants' view the legislature's failure to enact provisions which would allow others than the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation access to the audiovisual media is incompatible with Article 10 (Art. 10) which guarantees freedom of expression to "everyone".   51.    Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention states:         "1. 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.   This Article shall not prevent       States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television       or cinema enterprises.         2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it       duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,       conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law       and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of       national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for       the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health       or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of       others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in       confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of       the judiciary."   a.     Interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1)   52.    The first question is whether there has been an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   53.    The present case concerns the refusal by the Austrian authorities to grant broadcasting licences to the applicants.   It relates in principle to the freedom enshrined in Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) "to ... impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".   54.    However, according to the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention, Article 10 does "not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting ... enterprises".   The third sentence refers to "broadcasting" rather than the reception of broadcasting (see Autronic v. Switzerland, Comm. Report 9.3.89, Series A no.178, p. 38, para. 61).   By envisaging a licensing system, the third sentence appears to limit the protection afforded by the rights in the first and second sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1).   55.    According to the decisions of the Austrian courts and administrative authorities, the licensing system in Austria excludes any broadcasting other than by the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation. On the basis thereof the applicants' requests for licences were refused.   An issue arises therefore whether in the light of the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) there was an interference with the applicants' rights under the first and second sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   56.    The applicants submit that according to the case-law of the Convention organs the last sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) does not cover a broadcasting monopoly (see Eur. Court H.R., Groppera judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 23 et seq., paras. 57 et seq.; Autronic judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 24, paras. 50 et seq.)   Rather, the interference with their rights must be justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   Due to the technical progress in the area of radio and television the reasons which may earlier have justified broadcasting monopolies, in particular the constraints caused by the scarcity of available frequencies, have disappeared.   In any event, in the applicants' view the application of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence presupposes the existence of a licensing procedure which is lacking in Austria.   57.    The Government submit that a broadcasting monopoly is not as such incompatible with Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence of the Convention.   This last sentence would be deprived of any meaning if Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) were also to be applied to the licensing of broadcasting and television.   Broadcasting and television should be treated differently from the print media: They serve the community as a whole and require regulation by the State in a manner which ensures that the public is being informed objectively and impartially.   State legislation enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in this respect.   58.    The Government submit that the conformity of a broadcasting monopoly with this provision depends on the manner in which it is organised. When the Convention was drafted, broadcasting monopolies existed in most States.   Since then, monopolies in many States have been liberalised.   However, there is no consolidated European standard. Caution is called for when relying on such developments for purposes of interpreting Article 10 (Art. 10), since the specific conditions in each country must also be examined. In Austria the legislation concerned is based on the principles of objective reporting, plurality of opinions and independence of journalists.   The organisation of the broadcasting monopoly thus meets the requirements of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence.   59.    In its earlier case-law on Article 10 para. 1 (art. 10-1), third sentence, the Commission found that there existed in many Convention States a system of monopoly enterprises for radio and television, and that Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence could not be understood as excluding a broadcasting monopoly as such (see No. 3071/67, X. v. Sweden, Collection 26 p. 71; No. 6452/74, Sacchi v. Italy, D.R. 5 p. 50).   Subsequently, the Commission found that if Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence permitted a State to enact legislation requiring the licensing of broadcasting enterprises, the State could also enact legislation ensuring compliance with the licence in question (see No. 10799/84, Radio X. and others v. Switzerland, D.R. 37 p. 236).   On the other hand, the Commission found that, while broadcasting enterprises have no guarantee of any right to a licence under the Convention, the rejection by a State of a licence application must not be manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory (see No. 10746/84, Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern and Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland, D.R. 49 p. 139 et seq.).   60.    The Court was confronted with Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence in the Groppera case, where it held:              "the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 ((Art. 10-1),       insofar as it amounts to an exception to the principle set forth       in the first and second sentences, is of limited scope ... (T)he       purpose of the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1)       of the Convention is to make it clear that States are permitted       to control by a licensing system the way in which broadcasting       is organised in their territories, particularly in its technical       aspects.   It does not, however, provide that licensing measures       shall not otherwise be subject to the requirements of paragraph       2, for that would lead to a result contrary to the object and       purpose of Article 10 (Art. 10) taken as a whole" (see Eur. Court       H.R., Groppera Radio AG and Others judgment of 28 March 1990,       Series A no. 173, p. 24, para. 61; see also Autronic AG judgment       of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 178, p. 24, para. 52).   61.    Thus, the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) is made subject   to the requirements under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) for the justification of any interference with the right to freedom of expression.   Therefore, the Commission does not consider that the licensing requirement limits in principle the rights guaranteed by the first and second sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1).   The freedom to impart information also through duly licensed broadcasting is, for these reasons, in principle guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   62.    In the present case, Austria has failed to provide for a procedure through which the applicants could apply for a broadcasting licence.   It follows that there has been an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   63.    The question arises in respect of the first applicant's request for a broadcasting licence whether the establishment of an internal cable television system, aiming at improving communications between proprietors of a residential development, amounts to a broadcasting enterprise within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1).   However, the Commission need not resolve this issue.   Thus, even if a cable television system did constitute a broadcasting enterprise, the Commission has just found that there would nevertheless have been an interference with the first applicant's right under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention (see above para. 62).   b.     Relevance of Article 10, para. 1, third sentence (Art. 10-1)   64.    Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), third sentence remains relevant in that States are permitted to control by a licensing system the way in which broadcasting is organised in their territories, particularly in its technical aspects, for instance in the determination and allocation of frequencies, without interfering with the rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention (see the Groppera judgment, loc. cit., p. 24, para. 61).   65.    In the present case, it was not on technical grounds that the applicants were prevented from obtaining broadcasting licences.   It follows that the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), in the interpretation given to it by the Court, fails to remove the interference with the applicants' right under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) to freedom of expression, in particular the freedom to impart information.   66.    The Commission must therefore examine whether the interference satisfied the conditions of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   c.     Justification of this interference under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2)   aa)    Was the interference "prescribed by law" (Article 10 para. 2) (Art. 10-2)?   67.    The first question is whether the interference was "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   68.    Both parties refer in this respect to the Constitutional Broadcasting Act of 1974 and to the fact that for the time being implementing regulations only exist with regard to the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation.   69.    The Commission recalls that in order to be "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention, the interference must have some basis in domestic law.   The law must be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual to regulate his conduct.   It is primarily for the national authorities to interpret the domestic law, as they are particularly qualified to settle the issues concerned (see Eur. Court H.R., Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 21 et seq., paras. 45 et seq.).   70.    In the present case, the Commission notes that both the Telecommunications Act of 1949 and the Private Telecommunication Installations Ordinance of 1961 envisage the possibility of private broadcasting installations (see above, paras. 42 et seq.).   On the other hand, Section 1 para. 2 of the Constitutional Broadcasting Act of 1974 provides that more detailed provisions for broadcasting, and