CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 101 October 2007 Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria - 14134/02 Judgment 11.10.2007 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Failure to give reasons for refusing to grant a broadcasting licence and lack of judicial review of that decision: violation   Facts : The applicants are a single-member private company and its manager. In 2000 the applicant company was refused a broadcasting licence on the basis of a decision by the National Radio and Television Committee (the NRTC) which found that the proposed radio station failed to meet fully its requirements. The applicants unsuccessfully sought judicial review of this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court which held that the NRTC’s discretion was not open to judicial scrutiny. Law: Article 10 – The interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had stemmed from the NTRC’s decision. The NRTC had not held any form of public hearing and its deliberations had been kept secret, despite a court order obliging it to provide the applicants with a copy of its minutes. Nor had it given reasons explaining why it considered that the applicant company had failed to meet its requirements. This lack of reasons had not been made good in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, because the Supreme Administrative Court had held that the NTRC’s discretion was not reviewable. This, coupled with the vagueness of some of the NRTC’s criteria, had denied the applicants legal protection against arbitrary interference with their freedom of expression. In this connection, the guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the broadcasting regulation domain called for open and transparent application of the regulations governing the licensing procedure and specifically recommended that all decisions taken by the regulatory authorities be duly reasoned and open to review by the competent jurisdictions. Consequently, the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had not been lawful. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – The approach taken by the Supreme Administrative Court in the applicants’ case, which had involved refusing to interfere with the NRTC’s discretionary powers, had fallen short of Article 13 requirements, which obliged the domestic authorities to examine the substance of the Convention complaint. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   Article 41 – EUR 5000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes