CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 March 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20002/13 ASSOCIAZIONE POLITICA NAZIONALE LISTA MARCO PANNELLA and RADICALI ITALIANI against Italy lodged on 27 December 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are a political party and a political movement, respectively. The case concerns the failure by the national authorities to comply with the requirements of Section 4 of Law no. 103 of 14 April 1975, concerning the organisation of television and radio broadcasts with political content (“ tribune politiche ”). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy by which to challenge the alleged violation of Article 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, have they failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the principles established by the Court under Article   10 of the Convention, notably in its judgments in the cases of Manole and Others v. Moldova (no. 13936/02, §§ 95-102, ECHR 2009 (extracts)), Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy ([GC], no.   38433/09, §§ 129-135, ECHR 2012), and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, §§ 100-105, ECHR 2013 (extracts)),   a)     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas?   b)     Did the State comply with its duty to ensure that the public has access through television and radio to impartial and accurate information and a range of opinion and comment, reflecting inter alia the diversity of political outlook within the country?   c)     Did the national legislative and administrative framework guarantee effective pluralism?