AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 32556/96
by David BELLIS
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 6 April 1996 by
David BELLIS against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 August 1996
under file No. 32556/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen, resident in Manchester. The
facts of the case as submitted by the applicant can be summarised as
follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
In 1992 the applicant was convicted by a Magistrate's Court under
the Broadcasting Act 1990 for running a radio station without a
licence. The applicant was fined, his equipment was seized and he was
disqualified from holding a licence to broadcast for a period of five
years.
Despite the existence of this ban the applicant obtained
employment with a radio station in Liverpool. However the Radio
Authority complained to the station, stating that the applicant was a
disqualified broadcaster. The radio station, although satisfied with
the applicant's services, terminated the employment of the applicant
on receipt of the complaint.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under Section 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 there is a
prohibition on providing independent radio services without a licence.
Under Section 89 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 any person
convicted of an offence under Section 97, is disqualified for holding
a broadcasting licence for a period of five years.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about the ban that has prevented him from
pursuing his chosen career. He complains that the ban was excessive and
that there was no procedure whereby he could appeal for the ban to be
lifted (he does not dispute the conviction itself). He invokes
Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains of a violation of his right to freedom
of expression under Article 10 (Art. 10).
Article 10 (Art. 10) provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent
States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television
or cinema enterprises."
The Commission notes that the last sentence of Article 10 para. 1
(Art. 10-1) specifically envisages legislation requiring the licensing
of broadcasting. It must therefore be legitimate under the Convention
for a State to enact measures directed against those who seek to avoid
the licensing requirements (see No. 8266/78, Dec. 4.12.78, D.R. 16, p.
190 at p. 192 and No. 10799/84, Dec. 17.5.84, D.R. 37, p. 236 at p.
240). In the present case the applicant broadcast without a licence and
by way of penalty was disqualified from broadcasting for a period of
five years. The Commission considers it was within the State's margin
of appreciation to impose a disqualifying penalty in order to serve as
a real deterrent to unlicensed broadcasting. The Commission does not
consider the automatic imposition of a five year ban either arbitrary
or excessive in the circumstances.
It follows that this part of the application must be dismissed
as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant complains under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention that he had no effective remedy, in particular that the was
unable to appeal against his disqualification.
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The Commission recalls that the guarantees of Article 13
(Art. 13) apply only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable"
(cf. Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment
of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 14, para. 31). In the present
case, the Commission has rejected the substantive claims as disclosing
no appearance of a violation of the Convention. For similar reasons,
they cannot be regarded as "arguable".
It follows that this part of the application must be dismissed
as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy