Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria | 1993

Legal challenge brings an end to the state monopoly on TV and radio

Background

During the late 1970s and 1980s, various Austrians wanted to set up local television or radio stations. For example, the owners of Radio Melody GmbH wanted to set up a local radio station in Salzburg.

However, they discovered that it was unlawful for anyone other than the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast TV or radio in Austria. The Post and Telecommunications Office refused to allow any other person or company to broadcast, and this decision was upheld by the Austrian courts.

A group of individuals, organisations and companies applied to the European Court of Human Rights. They argued that the rules were designed to give the authorities political control of the audio-visual industry, limiting pluralism and artistic freedom.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court noted the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society: the press provides information and ideas of general interest, which the public is entitled to receive. This cannot be done without pluralism.

The court ruled that the ban on broadcasting – and the monopoly of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation - had been disproportionate. It had violated the applicants’ right to provide information and was not necessary in a democracy.

Follow-up

This judgment opened up cable and satellite broadcasting, as well as local and regional radio. An Austrian Constitutional Court decision in 1995 lifted the ban on transmitting original programmes via cable.

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

Excessive police operation against journalists leads to reforms to protect media sources

Four Belgian journalists were targeted by the police in a huge search and seizure operation aimed at identifying the source of leaked government information. The European court ruled that the operation had been unjustified and disproportionate. The case influenced new legislation to improve protections for journalists and their sources.

Themes: Right to privacy Freedom of speech

Belgium

Nurse compensated after being fired for whistleblowing

Brigitte Heinisch was a geriatric nurse. She claimed that practices in the old people’s home where she worked were putting patients at risk. After she made her allegations public, she was fired. Yet, the German courts found that her dismissal was lawful - so Mrs Heinisch took her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Her case was then re-opened and she won compensation.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Germany

Justice for man made to pay huge fine for publishing criticism of a public official

Zoran Lepojić wrote an article saying that a mayor had wasted public money. The mayor successfully brought defamation charges, and Zoran was fined more than eight average monthly salaries. The European court ruled that this had been unreasonable, violating Zoran's right to free speech. The Supreme Court of Serbia took steps to protect freedom of expression in such circumstances.