CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 octobre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   674 11.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ANATOLIY ELENKOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria (application no.   14134/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Glas Nadezhda EOOD, a limited liability company set up in 2000 and based in Sofia, and its only member and manager, Anatoliy Elenkov, a Bulgarian national, born in 1972 and living in Sofia. Mr Elenkov is a Christian and a member of the Protestant Church in Bulgaria.   In August 2000 Glas Nadezhda EOOD applied to the State Telecommunications Commission (the “STC”) for a licence to set up a radio station to broadcast Christian programmes in and around Sofia. On 2 November 2000 the STC refused to grant the licence. That refusal was based on a decision taken on 2 October 2000 by the National Radio and Television Committee (the “NRTC”) which found that, on the basis of the documents submitted by Glas Nadezhda EOOD, the proposed radio station would not meet its requirements to make social and business programmes or to target regional audiences. The proposals also failed to fully meet its requirements to produce original programmes, to ensure audience satisfaction and to provide the professional and technological resources required.   Glas Nadezhda EOOD brought proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review of the STC’s decision. It submitted in particular that the courts should first examine whether the NRTC’s decision was lawful before ruling on the STC’s decision. The NRTC had not explained why the applicants’ documents had failed to meet its requirements, in breach of the rules of procedure and the requirement that administrative decisions be reasoned. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed that application on the ground that the STC was bound by the NRTC’s decision and could not review its lawfulness. That court could not examine the lawfulness of the NRTC’s decision either because the proceedings in question were against the STC. It could only review the NRTC’s decision in separate proceedings.   Glas Nadezhda EOOD’s ensuing application for judicial review of the NRTC’s decision was dismissed on 28 December 2002. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the NRTC had total discretion in assessing whether an application for a broadcasting licence had met certain criteria and that that discretion was not open to judicial scrutiny.   In the meantime, Mr Elenkov attempted to obtain a copy of the minutes of the NRTC’s deliberations, which were meant to be available to the public under the Access to Public Information Act 2000. Despite his requests and a court order, Mr Elenkov has not yet had access to those minutes.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 October 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complained that Glas Nadezhda EOOD was refused a broadcasting licence. They also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the ensuing judicial review proceedings.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had stemmed entirely from the NRTC’s decision, which had been binding on the STC by law.   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. Furthermore, the NRTC had merely stated in its decision of 2 October 2000 that Glas Nadezhda EOOD had not or had only partially corresponded to a number of its criteria. No reasoning was given to explain why the NRTC came to that conclusion or why it had exercised its discretion to deny a broadcasting licence.   No redress had been given either for that lack of reasoning in the ensuing judicial review proceedings because it had been held that the NRTC’s discretion had not been reviewable. That, together with the NRTC’s vagueness concerning certain criteria for programmes, had denied the applicants legal protection against arbitrary interference with their freedom of expression. Indeed, guidelines adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers in the broadcasting regulation domain called for open and transparent application of regulations governing licensing procedures and specifically recommended that “[a]ll decisions taken ... by the regulatory authorities ... be ... duly reasoned [and] open to review by the competent jurisdictions”.   Consequently, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had not been lawful and held that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 9   Given its findings under Article 10, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Article 9.   Article 13   The Court found that the approach taken by the Supreme Administrative Court in the applicant’s 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. That meant examining whether the interference with the applicants’ rights had answered a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.