CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 1997

.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. 32556/96                       by David BELLIS                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 6 April 1996 by David BELLIS against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 August 1996 under file No. 32556/96;         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 is a British citizen, resident in Manchester. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant can be summarised as follows.   A.     Particular circumstances of the case         In 1992 the applicant was convicted by a Magistrate's Court under the Broadcasting Act 1990 for running a radio station without a licence. The applicant was fined, his equipment was seized and he was disqualified from holding a licence to broadcast for a period of five years.         Despite the existence of this ban the applicant obtained employment with a radio station in Liverpool. However the Radio Authority complained to the station, stating that the applicant was a disqualified broadcaster. The radio station, although satisfied with the applicant's services, terminated the employment of the applicant on receipt of the complaint.   B.     Relevant domestic law         Under Section 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 there is a prohibition on providing independent radio services without a licence.         Under Section 89 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 any person convicted of an offence under Section 97, is disqualified for holding a broadcasting licence for a period of five years.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains about the ban that has prevented him from pursuing his chosen career. He complains that the ban was excessive and that there was no procedure whereby he could appeal for the ban to be lifted (he does not dispute the conviction itself). He invokes Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains of a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (Art. 10).         Article 10 (Art. 10) provides, so far as relevant, as follows:         "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."         The Commission notes that the last sentence of Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) specifically envisages legislation requiring the licensing of broadcasting. It must therefore be legitimate under the Convention for a State to enact measures directed against those who seek to avoid the licensing requirements (see No. 8266/78, Dec. 4.12.78, D.R. 16, p. 190 at p. 192 and No. 10799/84, Dec. 17.5.84, D.R. 37, p. 236 at p. 240). In the present case the applicant broadcast without a licence and by way of penalty was disqualified from broadcasting for a period of five years. The Commission considers it was within the State's margin of appreciation to impose a disqualifying penalty in order to serve as a real deterrent to unlicensed broadcasting. The Commission does not consider the automatic imposition of a five year ban either arbitrary or excessive in the circumstances.         It follows that this part of the application must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant complains under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention that he had no effective remedy, in particular that the was unable to appeal against his disqualification.         Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:         "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this       Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a       national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been       committed by persons acting in an official capacity."         The Commission recalls that the guarantees of Article 13 (Art. 13) apply only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable" (cf. Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31). In the present case, the Commission has rejected the substantive claims as disclosing no appearance of a violation of the Convention. For similar reasons, they cannot be regarded as "arguable".         It follows that this part of the application must be dismissed as 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.           M.F. BUQUICCHIO                              J. LIDDY          Secretary                                 President    to the First Chamber                      of the First Chamber