Application No. 12439/86
                      by Lennart Sundberg
                      against Sweden

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 15 October 1987 the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J.A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 18 July 1986 by
Mr.  Lennart Sundberg against Sweden and registered on 6 October 1986
under file N° 12439/86;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


        The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's
submissions, may be summarised as follows.

        The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1952 and resident
in Malmö.

        In December 1981 the applicant contacted the District Office
of the Swedish National Radio Company (Sveriges Riksradio Aktiebolag)
and explained that he was interested in producing a radio programme.
He received in reply information about the Tape Work Shop (Bandverkstan)
of the Swedish Radio.  The information stated that the conditions for
making a radio programme were, inter alia, that the programme was
suitable for radio, that the proposal did not involve unreasonable
undertakings, that no individual, who could not defend himself, was
attacked, and that the programme had to be accepted before being

        The applicant proposed and produced a programme called "Live
well with an unegoistic economy".  The programme was supposed to last
60 minutes and contain the following elements:

        how shall the welfare be secured to everybody and forever in
        spite of the oil?

        how does historical new-thinking make welfare possible for
        everybody and forever and solve the oil problem?

        how does unegoistic economy win over capitalism, socialism
        and mixed economy in spite of egoism?

        how does democracy win lasting peace for everybody and

        how will welfare function for everybody and forever?

        On 1 February 1982 he received a reply according to which the
Work Shop declined to broadcast his programme.  It was stated in the
reply that the radio was not a suitable medium for the presentation of
such material.  It was too abstract and too "compact" for the
audience.  The applicant made a new or revised programme which was
called "Lennart Sundberg's crisis recipe".  Also this programme was
not accepted by the representatives of the Swedish Radio.  Following a
further exchange of letters, the applicant received a letter from the
Swedish Radio in which it was said that the Swedish Radio had the
right under the Radio Act (radiolagen) to decide independently which
programmes were to be produced and broadcast, which was said to imply
that the Radio could reject programmes for various reasons without
this being contrary to the freedom of expression or any laws.

        The applicant, considering that the Swedish National Radio
Company had refused to broadcast his programme on subjective and
partial grounds, introduced a court action against the company
claiming compensation.  The Malmö District Court (tingsrätt) delivered
judgment on 15 February 1984.  As the company had accepted to pay him
400 SEK as a contribution towards his costs for the programme, the
Court made an order for the payment of this sum, but his other claims,
inter alia, a claim for non-pecuniary damage of 3 million SEK and a
claim that the programme be broadcast, were rejected.  In its reasons
the Court stated the following as an introduction:

"First it may be established that no 'radio freedom'
in the same meaning as freedom of the press (tryckfrihet)
exists under Swedish law.  There is no right for everybody
to express opinions on the radio.  The broadcasting of radio
and television is entrusted to four programme companies,
one of which is responsible for the national radio.  Under
Section 5 para. 2 of the Radio Act every programme company
decides on its own inter alia on the programmes to be broadcast
on the radio.  This right should, according to Section 6 para. 1
of the Radio Act, be exercised impartially and objectively.
The last-mentioned provision is not subject to any sanction
in the Radio Act.  The way State influence is exercised - apart
from the right to appoint certain members of the board of
the mother company of the programme companies - is by means of
a private contract which under Sections 5 and 6 is concluded
between the Government and the respective programme company.
This contract contains inter alia certain indications of the
nature of the programme policy.  In the contract which is now
applicable between the Government and the Swedish Radio
Section 22 provides inter alia the following.  If there
is reason to believe that the Swedish Radio has to a
considerable extent violated Section 6 of the Radio Act or
this contract, the State may request an investigation of the
question by investigators appointed according to the Act on
Arbitrators (lagen om skiljemän).  An individual has no
right to complain about possible violations of what is
provided for in the above-mentioned contract about choice
of programmes."

        The applicant appealed to the Scania and Blekinge Court of
Appeal (hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge) which, in a judgment of
28 June 1985, confirmed the judgment of the District Court.

        The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen)
which, on 16 May 1986, refused leave to appeal.  The applicant also
claimed compensation from the State before the Supreme Court.  This
claim was rejected by the Supreme Court on 16 May 1986.


        The applicant makes numerous complaints and alleges violations
of Articles  1, 3, 4 para. 2, Article 5 paras. 1, 4 and 5 as well as
Articles 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1.  He submits inter alia that the refusal of Sweden to
allow him to broadcast his radio programme was an arbitrary measure by
the national radio monopoly.  The result is that his own and
everybody's rights have been violated.


        The applicant complains inter alia that the Swedish National
Radio Company has refused to broadcast his programme.  He invokes Articles 1,
3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14 (Art. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14) of the
Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3).

        In a previous case against Sweden (No. 9297/81, Dec. 1.3.82,
D.R. 28 p. 204) the Commission stated:

"It is true that Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention guarantees to
everyone the right to freedom of expression and that this
right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by any
public authority.  However, it is also provided that Article
10 (Art. 10) does not prevent a State from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.  This last-
mentioned provision does of course imply that for practical
reasons the first-mentioned rights will be of a more limited
scope in a State which requires licensing of radio and
television.  It should however be noted that a State that
establishes a system requiring licensing has special duties
to ensure that the rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention
remain protected."

        In an earlier decision (No. 4515/70, Dec. 12.7.71, Yearbook
14 p. 538) the Commission stated as follows:

"It is evident that the freedom to 'impart information and
ideas' included in the right to freedom of expression under
  Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, cannot be taken to include a
general and unfettered right for any private citizen or
organisation to have access to broadcasting time on radio or
television in order to forward its opinion.  On the other
hand, the Commission considers that the denial of
broadcasting time to one or more specific groups or persons
may, in particular circumstances, raise an issue under
Article 10 (Art. 10) alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention.  Such an issue would, in principle, arise, for
instance, if one political party was excluded from
broadcasting facilities at election time while other
parties were given broadcasting time."

        The Commission finds no indication, on the facts of the case,
that the refusal to let the applicant broadcast his programmes on the
Swedish Radio was based on grounds which could be regarded as
arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise contrary to the requirements of
objectivity and impartiality.  In these circumstances, the Commission
considers that the refusal cannot be regarded as having had such a purpose or
such an effect as could raise an issue under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

        The Commission, noting that the applicant's action against the
Swedish Radio was examined by the District Court, the Court of Appeal
and the Supreme Court, finds no appearance of a violation of any of
the other provisions invoked by the applicant.

        It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

        For these reasons, the Commission


        Secretary to the Commission     President of the Commission

             (H. C. KRÜGER)                  (C.A. NØRGAARD)