CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 novembre 1993

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. November 1993 Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria - 13914/88, 15041/89, 15779/89 et al. Judgment 24.11.1993 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Licensing of broadcasting enterprises Impossibility of setting up and operating private radio or television stations because of the monopoly of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Not in dispute that there had been "interference" with the exercise by the applicants of their freedom to impart information or ideas. A.   Paragraph 1, third sentence States permitted to regulate by licensing system way in which broadcasting was organised in their territories, particularly in its technical aspects - grant or refusal of licence might also be made conditional on other considerations: nature and objectives of a proposed station, potential audience at national, regional or local level, rights and needs of a specific audience and obligations deriving from international legal instruments. Monopoly system operated in Austria was capable of contributing to quality and balance of programmes - consistent with third sentence of paragraph 1. B.   Paragraph 2 Whether interferences complained of were "necessary in a democratic society": only point in issue in case before the Court. Fundamental role of freedom of expression in democratic society, in particular where it served to impart information and ideas of general interest - such an undertaking could not be successful unless grounded in pluralism, of which State was the ultimate guarantor. Public monopoly imposed severest restrictions on freedom of expression, which could only be justified where they corresponded to pressing need.   No such need established in this case. Fears of regroupings and "private monopolies" contradicted by experience of several European States of comparable size to Austria. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Not necessary to consider case also under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 10 (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: claims dismissed. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicants (unanimously).   © 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