CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 janvier 1993

.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. 18424/91                       by RÖDA KORSETS UNGDOMSFÖRBUND, GNESTA and                       MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET, TROSA-VAGNHÄRAD                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 January 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  G. SPERDUTI                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            M.     F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI              Mr. M. de SALVIA, Deputy 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 5 March 1991 by RÖDA KORSETS UNGDOMSFÖRBUND, GNESTA and MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET, TROSA-VAGNHÄRAD against Sweden and registered on 27 June 1991 under file No. 18424/91;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 15 April and 17 September 1992 and the observations submitted by the applicant on 21 August 1992;           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.     A. The particular facts of the case         A local radio transmitter at Vagnhärad/Nyköping is run by a non- profit association, Ö.S. The applicants and other non-profit associations, are members of Ö.S. and were licensed to broadcast community radio (närradio) over the transmitter.         Through the press and by letters from Ö.S. the Community Broadcasting Commission (närradionämnden), hereinafter the CBC, had been informed that the applicants intended to broadcast commercials over the transmitter at Vagnhärad/Nyköping.         On 20 and 21 June and on 1 July 1990 the CBC registered radio programmes containing commercials broadcast over the transmitter at Vagnhärad/Nyköping. Because of this, the applicants and other associations licensed to broadcast community radio over that transmitter, were invited by the CBC to submit their observations before or at a meeting at which the question of a withdrawal of their broadcasting licences was to be examined.         On 5 July 1990 the CBC held the meeting. The applicants and Ö.S. argued, in essence, that the licences should not be withdrawn as the prohibition to broadcast commercials was incompatible with the Instrument of Government (regeringsformen) and with the European Convention on Human Rights.         After deliberations in camera the CBC decided, on 5 July 1990, to withdraw the applicants' broadcasting licences for one year, inter alia for the following reasons:   (translation)         "According to Section 10 of the Community Radio Act       [närradiolagen, hereinafter the CRA,] it is prohibited to       broadcast commercial advertising on the community radio. If       this rule is infringed, the licence to broadcast community       radio may be withdrawn according to Section 13 of the same       Act.         The CBC notes that [among others, the applicants] have       broadcast commercials in their programmes. Thereby they       have violated Section 10 of the Community Radio Act and       there are reasons to withdraw their broadcasting licences.         As regards the issue of whether the prohibition to       broadcast commercials is in accordance with the provisions       of the Instrument of Government in respect of the       protection of the freedom of expression, the Supreme       Administrative Court [regeringsrätten] has, in a judgment       of 1983 (RÅ 1983 2:5), found that the rule in question is       not incompatible with the Instrument of Government on this       point, nor with Swedish law on any other ground. The CBC,       which has jurisdiction to apply the CRA, does not find that       what [the applicants] have argued on this point would lead       to a different conclusion (see also RÅ 1974 ref. 61).         The prohibition to broadcast commercials in Section 10 of       the CRA is fundamental for the activity of community radio       as its aim is to secure that the community radio is used       for the given purpose, namely to make it possible for local       non-profit organisations to broadcast, within their       districts, messages about their activities and to spread       their mission. On this ground and taking into account that       the commercials have been broadcast frequently,       deliberately and systematically, the CBC considers that       [the applicants'] broadcasting licences should be withdrawn       for one year."         The applicants appealed against the decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm, requesting that the decision of the CBC be quashed with immediate effect.         By judgment of 1 October 1990 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the CBC, for the following reasons:   (translation)         "The prohibition in the CRA to broadcast 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 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 licences is the only available measure.       As [the applicants] infringed the prohibition on purpose,       the period for the withdrawal, as decided by the CBC,       should not be changed."         The applicants appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court, which, however, refused leave to appeal on 31 January 1991.     B. Relevant domestic law and practice   Constitutional legislation         Prior to 1 January 1992, i.e. during the period relevant to the present case, freedom of expression in radio and television was provided for primarily by the Instrument of Government and ordinary legislation with particular regard to radio and television which included provisions on commercial advertising.         Chapter 2, Section 2, of the Instrument of Government read at the relevant time in its relevant parts as follows:   (translation)         "All citizens shall be guaranteed the following in their       relations with the public administration:         1. freedom of expression: the freedom to communicate       information and to express ideas, opinions and emotions,       whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations,       or in any other way;         2. freedom of information: the freedom to obtain and       receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the       utterances of others;         ..."         As of 1 January 1992, a new constitutional law entered into force, the Freedom of Expression Act (yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen). An amendment to the above Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government was made at the same time in that the following was added:   (translation)         "In the case of the freedom of the press and the       corresponding freedom of expression with regard to radio,       television and certain similar transmissions, films,       videogrammes and other recordings of moving pictures and       sound recordings, the provisions of the Freedom of the       Press Act [tryckfrihetsförordningen] and the Freedom of       Expression Act shall apply."         The rights and freedoms safeguarded in the Instrument of Government may only be restricted if certain criteria are fulfilled. These are found in Chapter 2, Section 12, which in its relevant parts provides:   (translation)         "The rights and freedoms referred to in Section 1,       subsection 1 - 5, in sections 6 and 8, and in section 11,       subsection 2, may be restricted by law to the extent       provided for in Sections 13 - 16. After authorization in       law, they may be restricted by statutory order in the cases       referred to in Chapter 8, Section 7, subsection 1, no. 7,       and in Chapter 8, Section 10. Freedom of assembly and the       freedom to demonstrate may similarly be restricted also in       the cases referred to in Section 14, subsection 1, second       sentence.         The restrictions referred to in the preceding paragraph may       be imposed only to achieve a purpose acceptable in a       democratic society. The restriction may never exceed what       is necessary having regard to the purpose which occasioned       it, nor may it be carried so far as to constitute a threat       to the free formation of opinion as one of the foundations       of democracy. No restriction may be imposed solely on       grounds of political, religious, cultural or other such       opinions."         As regards freedom of expression Chapter 2, Section 13, of the Instrument of Government furthermore provides:   (translation)         "Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be       restricted having regard to the security of the Realm, the       national supply, public safety and order, the integrity of       the individual, the sanctity of private life, or the       prevention and prosecution of crime. Freedom of expression       may also be restricted in economic activities. Freedom of       expression and freedom of information may otherwise be       restricted only where particularly important reasons so       warrant.         In judging what restrictions may be made by virtue of the       preceding paragraph particular regard shall be paid to the       importance of the widest possible freedom of expression and       freedom of information in political, religious,       professional, scientific and cultural matters.         The issuing of rules and regulations which govern in detail       a particular manner of disseminating or receiving       information without regard to its content shall not be       deemed to restrict freedom of expression or freedom of       information."         The question of the constitutionality of a ban on commercial advertising in community radio has been considered by the courts and by Parliament on several occasions. In 1983 the Supreme Administrative Court found that such a ban was not in breach of the Instrument of Government or otherwise incompatible with Swedish law (judgment of 10 February 1983 published in the law reports, RÅ 1983 2:5). The same question arose during the Parliament's discussion leading to the entry into force, on 1 January 1992, of the above-mentioned Freedom of Expression Act.         According to Chapter 1, Section 1, of this Act, all citizens are guaranteed the freedom to publicly express ideas, opinions and emotions and to otherwise impart information, on any subject, in radio, television and certain similar transmissions, films, videogrammes and other recordings of moving pictures and sound recordings. The purpose of freedom of expression according to the Act is to secure a free exchange of opinions, free and pluralistic information and free artistic creation. No other restriction on these freedoms may be made than those the Act allows for.         As regards commercial advertising Chapter 1, Section 23, subsection 2, of the Freedom of Expression Act reads as follows:   (translation)         "The provisions of this constitutional Act does not prevent       provisions, by means of law, on the prohibition of       commercial advertising in radio programmes or on conditions       for such advertising."         The outcome of the discussion was accordingly that it was the opinion of the Swedish Parliament that legislation by means of ordinary law on the prohibition of commercial advertising in radio programmes would not be in conflict with constitutional law.     The Community Radio Act         The Community Radio Act of 10 June 1982 reads as follows:   (translation)         "Section 1.   This Act contains provisions concerning the       right of certain associations to transmit community radio.       By community radio is meant limited-range broadcast       transmissions of sound radio programmes.         In this Act, the terms broadcasting, radio transmitters and       radio programmes shall be understood in the same way as in       the Radio Act (1966:755).         Section 2.   A Community Broadcasting Commission shall be       appointed to review issues relating to community radio, and       to exercise supervision over community radio activities.         The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission shall be       learned in law and experienced in judgment.         More detailed provisions concerning the Commission are to       be published by the Government.         Section 3.   Community radio may not be transmitted without       the permission of the Community Broadcasting Commission.         Section 4.   Permission to transmit community radio can be       extended to associations that are legal persons, although       not to other such persons than:           1. Local voluntary associations that conduct activities       within the transmission area. Unless particular reasons       suggest otherwise, permission may be extended only on       condition that the activities in question have been       conducted for at least one year prior to the date of       application,         2. Local voluntary associations that have been formed in       order to transmit programmes on community radio, that       constitute part of an activity conducted within the       transmission area by a national organisation. Permission       may be granted on condition that the national organisation       has conducted activities within the transmission area for       at least one year prior to the date of application. If       special grounds exist, permission may be granted also if       the activity in question has not been conducted for at       least one year,         3. Congregations within the Swedish (Lutheran) Church,         4. Compulsory associations of students at universities and       colleges of higher education,         5. Associations of several licence-holders for joint       purposes relating to community radio (community radio       associations).         Section 5.   Permission to transmit community radio is       granted only after the association in question has stated       who has been appointed programme supervisor in accordance       with the Act (1982:460) concerning Liability for Community       Radio.         Section 6.   Community radio may only be transmitted via       such radio transmitters as the Swedish Telecommunications       Administration makes available.         Section 7.   For each transmitter, the Community Broad-       casting Commission shall decide what associations shall be       permitted to transmit, and during which times transmissions       may take place.         Section 8.   Transmission time shall be distributed as far       as possible in accordance with the wishes of the       associations. If their wishes are incompatible, priority       shall be given to the association judged to have the       greatest interest in being permitted to transmit at a       certain time.         Any decision on broadcasting time shall be valid until       further notice, up to a maximum of one year.         Section 9.   Sections 6 and 7 of the Radio Act(1966:755) do       not apply to community radio.           Section 10.   Commercial advertising shall not be       transmitted by community radio.         A programme or item of a programme transmitted by community       radio shall not be paid for by money or goods made       available to the association on condition that the       programme or element of that programme is transmitted.         Section 11.   The association's programme supply may not       contain material that has not been produced entirely for       its own activities, other than to a limited extent.         The programme supply of a community radio association may       only contain:         1. information on programmes and transmission times, and       other information relating to community radio activities in       the area,         2. transmissions from events of common interest to licence-       holders in the area,         3. information, to a limited extent, on local municipal       activities, and         4. experimental transmissions of programmes produced by       associations without a licence to transmit, for a maximum       of three months in each case.         Section 12.   The Government, or such authority as the       Government may nominate, shall publish regulations       concerning charges in matters affecting community radio.         Section 13.   Permission to transmit community radio may be       revoked if the association         1. no longer fulfils the requirements laid down in       Section 4,         2. is in breach of a decision concerning transmission       times, and allows another party to use transmission time       that has been assigned to the association in its place,         3. transmits a programme despite the fact that there exists       neither a duly appointed programme supervisor, nor a       substitute for a programme supervisor, in accordance with       the Act (1982:460) concerning Liability for Community       Radio, or despite the fact that no notice has been given of       who has been appointed programme supervisor,         4. has transmitted a programme that has been found, in a       judgment that has acquired legal force, to be in breach of       the rules regarding freedom of speech, and which       constitutes a serious abuse of the freedom of speech in       community radio,         5. is in breach of the provisions laid down in Section 10       or 11,         6. fails to utilise its right to transmit for three       consecutive months, or         7. fails to pay a charge relating to community radio within       the prescribed time, if the association had been ordered to       pay such charge on pain of loss of licence.         Before a judgment as referred to in subsection 1 no. 4 has       acquired legal force, the Community Broadcasting Commission       may temporarily rescind permission to transmit.         When a licence is revoked, the Commission may determine a       period of at least one year within which the association       cannot be granted a new licence.         Section 14.   At the request of the community broadcasting       authority, an association shall make available to it a       recording as referred to in Section 8 of the Act (1982:460)       concerning Liability for Community Radio.         If the association fails to comply with such a request, the       authority may impose a fine.         Section 15.   The decisions of the Community Broadcasting       Commission regarding permission under Sections 4 and 13, or       the distribution of transmission time under Sections 7       and 8, may be appealed against to the Administrative Court       of Appeal; the said appeal to be lodged in the form of a       grievance. Other decisions made under this Act are not       subject to appeal.         Unless otherwise provided, decisions made in accordance       with this Act shall enter into force immediately."         It follows from the Act that commercials as well as sponsoring are prohibited, cf. Section 10. The Community Broadcasting Commission may revoke a permit to broadcast community radio if the association does not abide by the prohibition on commercial advertising (Section 13, subsection 1, no. 5). In doing so, the CBC may decide that the association cannot be granted a new licence for a maximum period of one year. Appeals against a decision of the CBC to withdraw a permit may be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal (cf. Section 15).     Other legislation         A Bill regarding the establishment of a system of so-called private local radio (privat lokalradio), which may be commercially financed, has been submitted to Parliament. The new legislation will, if adopted by Parliament, enter into force in 1993. Under the new system, the community radio could also be commercially financed.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants allege that the prohibition to broadcast commercials on community radio and the withdrawal of their broadcasting licences constitute violations of their right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.         They also complain, under Articles 1 and 13 of the Convention, of the fact that the Swedish courts did not examine their complaints under Article 10 of the Convention but only relied on domestic law.         Finally, in their observations of 21 August 1992, the applicant complained of a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention, referring to the principles of equality.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 5 March 1991 and registered on 27 June 1991.         On 10 February 1992 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.         The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits on 15 April 1992, and the applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 21 August 1992. Further observations were submitted by the Government on 17 September 1992.     THE LAW   1.     The applicants complain of a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention which reads:         "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."         The first question the Commission must examine is whether there has been an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.         The present case concerns the withdrawal by the Swedish authorities of the applicants' licences to broadcast community radio. It relates principally to the freedom enshrined in Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1)   "to ... impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".         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 broadcasts. By envisaging a licensing system, the third sentence appears to limit the protection afforded by the rights in the first and second sentences of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1).         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, Dec. 7.2.68, Collection 26 p. 71; No. 6452/74, Dec. 12.3.76, D.R. 5 p. 43). 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, Dec. 17.5.84, 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, Dec. 16.10.86, D.R. 49 p. 126).         The European Court of Human Rights was confronted with the interpretation of 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).           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 sentences 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.         In the present case the applicants' licences to broadcast community radio were withdrawn as they did not comply with the conditions set out in the Community Radio Act. It follows that there has been an interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention. Nevertheless 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).         In the present case, it was not on technical grounds that the applicants' broadcasting licences were withdrawn. It follows that the third sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), in the interpretation given to it by the European Court of Human Rights, does not cover the interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) to freedom of expression, in particular the freedom to impart information. The Commission must therefore examine whether the interference satisfied the conditions of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         It is not in dispute between the parties that the interference was prescribed by law. It follows from the Community Radio Act that the applicants' licences may be withdrawn if they do not comply with the conditions set for broadcasting under the Act. The Commission is furthermore satisfied that this legislation is sufficiently clear and precise to consider the interference to be "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         The next question to be examined under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention is whether the interference had an aim which is legitimate.         In the Government's submissions, which the applicants contest, the legislation concerned aims at preserving the purpose of community radio, i.e. to enable local associations to broadcast, within their communities, messages concerning their activities. Furthermore, the Government refer to the problems arising if licence holders do not abide by the prohibition on commercial advertising and thereby infringe the rights of other associations. Accordingly, the Government rely on the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others as legitimate aims.         The Commission finds that generally speaking broadcasting must be organised in such a manner as to prevent disorder. This is confirmed by the reference to licensing in the third sentence of Article 10, para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention which concerns the technical aspects of broadcasting. This regulation must be understood as leaving the Contracting States with a possibility of creating a structure which would secure an orderly functioning of broadcasting in areas where it would be technically impossible to allow an unlimited access to the available radio frequencies. Furthermore, the Commission accepts that the legislation aimed at securing community radio broadcasting on terms equal to all interested parties. Having regard to this, the Commission is satisfied that the community radio system as adopted by Sweden served the purpose of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others which are both legitimate aims envisaged by Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         The Government submit in summary that, when examining the necessity test, the level of protection of "commercial speech" must be less than that accorded to the expression of "political" ideas with which the concept of freedom of expression is mainly concerned. Furthermore, they submit that the applicants could resort to other means if they wanted to impart information through commercial media. The Government also stress the importance of there being some "non- commercial space" in media for the promotion of pluralism in the formation and dissemination of ideas and opinions and, having regard to the fact that there was no form of censorship directed against the content or tendencies of the programmes concerned, the Government submit that the withdrawal of the permits were proportionate to the aims pursued. Therefore, they conclude, referring also to the States' margin of appreciation, that the interference was "necessary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         The applicants submit in summary that the interference in question amounted to an absolute prohibition of all commercial advertising on community radio, something which they consider to be disproportionate to any legitimate aim pursued. Furthermore, they submit that, having regard to the state of technology today, there is no compelling reason for treating electronic media in substance differently from printed media. With reference to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, which emphasises the principles of the free flow of information and ideas, the applicants also consider that the Community Radio Act does not impose restrictions upon commercial advertising which are reasonable. Finally, the applicants refer to the lack of proportionality maintaining that the Government have failed to put forward any cogent or compelling reason why the aims pursued by the Government could not be pursued by permitting advertising subject to reasonable restrictions. Thus the applicants consider that a necessity for the interference has not been convincingly established.         The Commission recalls that the term "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention implies that the interference must correspond to a "pressing social need" and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society" the Convention organs must also take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see Eur. Court H.R., Autronic AG judgment, ibid., p. 26, et seq., para. 61). In the Commission's opinion, this margin of appreciation is essential in commercial matters and, in particular, in an area as complex and fluctuating as that of radio or television broadcasting. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention itself confirms the need for a broad margin of appreciation in that it envisages in the third sentence of para. 1 a licensing system for broadcasting enterprises.         The Commission is aware of the different solutions adopted in the member States of the Council of Europe with regard to broadcasting in general. The present case concerns a system of private broadcasting at a local level and it is thus clear that the system adopted by Sweden in general makes allowance for private initiative which would enable private licence holders to enjoy their freedom to impart information within the meaning of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.         The Commission recalls that the Swedish system of community radio broadcasting was created with a view to providing local associations with practical means of enjoying freedom of expression according to special rules in order to broadcast, within their districts, messages about their activities and to spread their opinions. The Swedish legislator and subsequently the courts found that, in order to secure that community radio would be used for this purpose, it would be necessary to prohibit commercial advertising. The Commission finds that it must confine its review of this appreciation to the question whether the measures taken on the national level were justifiable and proportionate (see Eur. Court H.R., Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 165, p. 19 seq., para. 33).         The Commission has not been informed of the actual content of the applicants' broadcasts which led to the withdrawal of their licences but notes that they contained commercials promoting the sale of goods and services supplied by others than the applicants themselves. In the ever increasing commercialisation of broadcasting, however, it will not exclude, as a matter of principle, the necessity of certain restrictions on licensed broadcasting in order to secure the legitimate intentions constituting the basis for its creation. In the present case the Commission furthermore recalls that the applicants obtained licences allowing them to take full advantage of the possibilities, within the system of community broadcasting, of expressing their views and ideas.   Their licences were withdrawn only due to the fact that they did not comply with the prohibition on commercial advertising contained in the Community Radio Act, a prohibition of which they were aware when the broadcasting licences were obtained. The restrictions on broadcasting thus related solely to commercial advertising which in the present case had no other purpose than providing financial support for the applicants. In these circumstances the Commission does not find that the Swedish Community Radio Act placed an excessive burden on the applicants to the extend that they wanted to impart information through this medium. Therefore, having regard to the Contracting States margin of appreciation, the Commission finds that the withdrawal of the applicants' broadcasting licences for a period of one year could be regarded as "necessary" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     Under Articles 1 and 13 (Art. 1, 13) of the Convention the applicants complain of the fact that the Swedish courts did not examine their complaints under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention but only relied on domestic law.         However, the Commission recalls that neither Article 13 (Art. 13) nor the Convention in general prescribes any particular manner in which the Contracting States should ensure within their internal law the effective implementation of the provisions of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Swedish Engine Drivers' Union judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20, p. 18, para. 50). Furthermore the Court has stated the following:         "By substituting the words `shall secure' for the words       `undertake to secure' in the text of Article 1 (Art. 1),       the drafters of the Convention also intended to make it       clear that the rights and freedoms set out in Section I       would be directly secured to anyone within the jurisdiction       of the Contracting States. That intention finds a       particularly faithful reflection in those instances where       the Convention has been i