APPLICA.TION'/REQQÉTE N° 1.1532/85 HAMMERDAHT S STORMARKNAD AB vlSWEDEN HAN[MERDAfILS STORMARKNAD AB c/SOÈI) E DECISION of 9 Octobei 1985 on the admissibili ty of the application DÉCISION du 9 oeeobre 1985 sur la recevabilité de la requête Article 10, paragraph I of the Convention : This provision does not concern a ciispute over the ref,tsal by a press cfistribution comparry to supply newspapers to a retailer who intendu to sell them below the fixed price .Article 10, paragraphe 1, de la Convenk(on : Un liti„e portant sur le refies d'un e entreprise de presse de livrer des journaux à un détaillant les vendant au-des,sous du prix,tzé ne relève pas de cette disposition . 7PHE FACTS (français : voirp. 279) The facts of the case, as they aopear from the applicaat's subinissions, may be summarirsd as follows . The applicant is a limücd liability company with its seat at Vïxj6. It is represented before ihe Commission by Mr . Lennart Jakobsson, a lawyer practising zt Lund . The applicant company operates a scipermarket at Vdxjb, where inter alia newspapers are sold . _ Preram AB is a limited liability company, owned inainly by the Swedish press . Its task ia intpartially to distribute and sell newspapers and magasines . 277 The applicant company sells products at a low price . Its intention was also to sell daily newspapers at a lower price, 2 :25 Swedish Crowns instead of 2 :50 Swedish Crowns, which was the fixed price for the newspapers . As a result of this, Presam AB refused to deliver newspapers to the applicant . The applicant reported this refusal to the Free Trade Ombudsman (ndringsfrihetsombudsmannen) who in a decision of 29 September 1983 stmck the case off his list. The applicant appealed to the Market Court (marknadsdomstolen) claiming that the Court should remove the limitation on the free commércialcompetition which resulted from the refusal of Presam AB to deliver newspapers to the applicant . The applicant invoked the 1982 Act on Commercial Competition (konkurrenslagen), the aim of which is to promote free competition by preventing undesirable restrictive trade practices . Under that Act the Market Court has power to prescribe measures against restrictive trade practices, which are considered to have "prejudicial effects" . By judgment of 11 April 1984 the Market Court rejected the applicant's claim stating that it had not been shown that the refusal of Presam AB to deliver newspapers to the applicant, on the conditions requested by the applicant, had "prejudicial effects" within the meaning of the 1982 Act . COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention has been violated . THE LAW The applicant company has complained of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. Article 10 of the Convention guarantees the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas . The fact on which the applicant company bases its allegation of a breach of Article 10 is that the company which distributes newspapers refuses to deliver newspapers to the applicant, the reason being the applicant's wish to sell the newspapers at a lower price than the fixed price, and that this refusal has been accepted by the Market Court . The Commission notes that the applicant is not prevented from selling newspapers . The dispute between the applicant and the distributor only relates to the commercial conditions for the sale of newspapers . This, in the opinion of the Commission, is not an issue which relates to the applicant's "freedom of expression" as this concept is to be understood in the Convention . Accordingly, the Commissio n 278 finds that the app.7cant's complaint falls outside the scope of Article 10 of the Convention. It follows that the application is incompatible rarione mcteriae within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2bf tie Convention . Por these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISS IBLE.