CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 septembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     624   21.9.2000     Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TELE 1 PRIVATFERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA     In a judgment [1] notified in writing today in the case of Tele1 Privatfernsehgesellschaft mbH v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the period from 30 November 1993 to 1 August 1996 and that there had been no violation of Article 10 in the period from 1 August 1996 to 1 July 1997. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 200,000 Austrian schillings (ATS) for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, Tele 1 Privatfernsehgesellschaft mbH is a limited liability company based in Vienna.   On 30 November 1993 the applicant applied to the competent Telecommunications Office for a licence to set up and operate a terrestrial television transmitter in the Vienna area. The Telecommunications Office dismissed its request on the ground that there was no legal basis for granting a television broadcasting licence except to the national station, the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (the “ ORF ”). As its appeal remained unsuccessful, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. On 5 March 1996 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, according to the 1974 Constitutional Broadcasting Law, broadcasting had to be authorised by federal legislation. In the area of television broadcasting such legislation had only been enacted with regard to the ORF . Further, the Constitutional Court recalled that following its judgment of 27 September 1995, private television broadcasters would be entitled to engage in cable broadcasting as of 1 August 1996.   On 1 July 1997 the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Act entered into force, requiring broadcasters to notify the Broadcasting Authority of any cable broadcasting and satellite broadcasting to be licensed. In both cases the broadcaster had to comply with certain requirements.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 July 1996 and declared partly admissible on 25 May 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Egil Levits (Latvian), judges , [Note1] and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaint   The applicant company complained that its right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court considered that the refusal of a licence to set up and operate a television transmitter constituted an interference with the applicant’s exercise of its freedom to impart information and ideas. It recalled that under the third sentence of Article 10 § 1, States are permitted to regulate broadcasting in their territories by a licencing system. Having regard to its Informationsverein Lentia and Others judgment of 24 November 1993 (Series A no. 276), the Court found that the monopoly system operated in Austria was capable of contributing to the quality and balance of programmes and was consistent with the third sentence of Article   10 §   1.   The Court went on to examine whether the interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 10. It was satisfied that the interference was prescribed by law, namely the 1974 Constitutional Broadcasting Law, and pursued legitimate aims. As regards the question whether it was “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court considered that three different periods had to be distinguished.   First period: from the application to the Telecommunications Office (30 November 1993) to the taking of effect of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 27 September 1995 (1 August 1996). In that period there was no legal basis whereby a licence for television broadcasting could be granted to any station other than the ORF . As the applicant’s situation was no different from that of the applicants in the Informationsverein Lentia and Others case, there was a breach of Article 10 during this period.   Second period: from the taking of effect of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 27   September 1995 (1 August 1996) to the entry into force of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Act (1 July 1997). The Court noted that during this period private broadcasters were free to create and transmit their television programmes via cable net without any conditions being attached, while terrestrial television broadcasting was still reserved for the ORF . The Government argued that the scarcity of frequencies resulting from Austria’s topographic situation justified reserving these frequencies for the ORF , while granting private broadcasters access to cable television. The Court, considering that almost all Vienna households could be connected to the cable net, found that cable broadcasting offered private broadcasters a viable alternative to terrestrial broadcasting. It concluded that the impossibility of obtaining a licence for terrestrial broadcasting could no longer be regarded as disproportionate to the aims pursued by the Constitutional Broadcasting Law. Accordingly, it found that there was no breach of Article 10 during this period.   Third period: since the entry into force of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Act (1 July 1997). The Court, noting that the applicant company has neither notified the Broadcasting Authority of any cable broadcasting activities nor applied for a satellite broadcasting licence, found that it did not have to rule on the third period as it was not its task to examine in abstracto whether legislation was compatible with the Convention.   Article 41   The Court awarded the applicant ATS 200,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.   [1] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [Note1]   Titles to be added in appropriate place. Line returns – and not paragraph returns – should be used (Shift+Enter).