THE FACTS Whereas a summary of the facts presented by the Applicant is to the following effect: The Applicant is a Swedish citizen living in Stockholm and has held various high political offices (Governor of B., Deputy Speaker of the First Chamber of Parliament, Representative to the United Nations). I. His Application is directed against the newly enacted Swedish Statute on Radio and Television of 30th December 1966, (Statute No. 755). He states that in Article 5 of this Statute it is provided that one enterprise, which is nominated by the King-in-Council, shall have the sole right to decide which broadcasting programmes shall be transmitted on radio or television to the public of Sweden. According to Swedish law there is no domestic remedy against this provision. Furthermore, Article 5 gives to one enterprise a monopoly right to all kinds of broadcasting and is, according to the Applicant's opinion, contrary to Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the Applicant submits that the last sentence of paragraph (1) which allows States to require the licensing of certain enterprises must be interpreted in a narrow sense. The fact that a licensing system is permitted does not mean that States have a right to establish a monopoly system by licensing only one enterprise in the country concerned. The wording of this part of the Article, where it expressly speaks of several "enterprises", indicates that only a licensing system which allows the right of broadcasting to be given to several enterprises is admissible. The principle dangers of the Swedish monopoly system to freedom of opinion will become more serious when the plans to let the monopoly enterprise transmit television programmes on two different channels are realised. Then the public can choose between two programmes, although produced by the same monopoly enterprise, their interest in the printed word, such a newspapers, periodicals and books, will diminish. It will then be still more difficult to reach the public with ideas other than those which are authorised by the monopoly enterprise. Persons who want to introduce ideas which do not conform with those that are held by the monopoly enterprise will have such difficulties that the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, as mentioned in the Convention, will be an illusion. Only such newspapers and periodicals as have the powerful support of big industrial circles or big organisations of other kinds have a real possibility to spread information. All others will be doomed to silence. This development will endanger the free democratic system of the country. Only opinions authorised by the monopoly broadcasting enterprise or by other powerful interests will have a chance to reach the public. Especially dangerous is the monopoly of the single enterprise of radio and television. There can be no real competition between two channels that are run by the same enterprise. Instead a certain conformity to the general taste of the employees of the enterprise will be likely to develop. By reviewing only such books, films and theatre performances as are in conformity with the ideas of the monopoly enterprise, that enterprise will be able to push public opinion in the direction it wants and to suppress ideas which are unpopular among its own employees. The same member of the Government who was responsible for the new Statute has recently been publicly lamenting that the views of his party are not sufficiently observed in certain Stockholm newspapers which have virtually a monopoly if the press. These papers are, according to this Minister, giving the public a false picture of the ideas and actions of his party. The same reflection can be made by many persons in view of the monopoly enterprise of radio and television. Many interesting ideas have, under the present circumstances, no chance of being expressed through these media. It has to be added that such dangers for the democratic system are especially serious in a country where the consolidated political parties have given themselves big state subsidies in order to strengthen their own positions and to prevent the rise to power of new, competitive parties. A system of several competing broadcasting enterprises is badly needed if freedom of opinion is to be preserved. With regard to the question in what way he is a victim of the Statute concerned, the Applicant submits the following: Whereas the Convention has been violated by enacting a Statute which affects the position of all citizens, every citizen has also the right to claim that he is a victim of that violation. During the last year there has been a considerable number of cases in which individuals have been denied the right to correct false broadcasting programmes affecting them. When a programme is transmitted on the television screen, the pictures make such an impression on the public that it is much more difficult afterwards to correct the impression than to correct a programme broadcast on the radio. II. The Applicant mentions certain examples in this respect some of them concerning him personally, but he states that the central point that has to be investigated is not what happened to him but the question whether or not Article 5 of the Swedish Statute is a violation of the European Convention. (1) The Applicant refers in particular to a television broadcast in the beginning of 1967 giving, according to him, a false picture of certain events in the L. company in Liberia in 1966. This programme has aroused much attention in Sweden. He states that the Director of the Information Service of the company concerned could give an account showing that there have been insufficient possibilities to correct this television broadcast. (2) He further states that, in January, 1954, and again on later occasions, he himself, when still in service as Governor of B., was denied the right of correcting entirely inaccurate information broadcast by the Swedish radio with regard to one of his official acts. (3) In May, 1959, it was stated on television that the Applicant had refused to discuss a certain matter on television whereas, in fact, he had only asked to postpone the programme by one week pending the results of an official investigation of the matter concerned. The Applicant brought the issue before a special radio board set up to hear complaints by the public but the board only decided that the programme could not be postponed and did not touch the real issue of his complaint. (4) In 1965, the Applicant was asked to take part in a programme dealing with the life of the farmers in East Africa in the nineteen-twenties. However, when he gave his consent, subject only to certain conditions intended to ensure the objectivity of the programme, there was no longer any interest in his participation. He then wrote a book on the life in East Africa in the twenties and this book was never mentioned on radio or television. THE LAW Whereas the Applicant complains that by virtue of Article 5 of the Statute of 30th December, 1966, radio and television are held as a monopoly in the hands of one public enterprise and no competing enterprises may be admitted; whereas the Applicant does not allege that he himself or any group to which he belongs wishes to establish an independent broadcasting or television enterprise; whereas he states, however, that as a member of the general public he is affected in his rights and freedoms guaranteed under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention; Whereas in this respect the question arises whether the Applicant, because of this alleged general impact on all citizens, can claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of the Convention as is required by Article 25 (Art. 25) thereof; whereas, however, the Commission does not find it necessary to pursue this question in the present case; Whereas, indeed, Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, which guarantees the freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and ideas, provides expressly in the last sentence of paragraph (1) (Art. 10-1) that "this Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises"; Whereas this provision does not state whether such enterprises shall be organised as private or as public corporations or whether they may be granted a monopoly in the field of this particular activity or whether there must at the same time exist competing enterprises; whereas the Applicant relies on the fact that the provision speaks of several "enterprises"; Whereas, however, the use of the plural term is grammatically consistent with the previous reference in the text to "States" in general as opposed to a "State"; whereas, when interpreting the term "licensing"" in the provision in question, the Commission finds it necessary to take into consideration the practice in different countries which are member States of the Council of Europe; whereas in this respect it appears that, both at the time of the drafting of the Convention and at the present time, a great number of such member States had established a system of public monopoly enterprises for radio and television; whereas, therefore, the Commission finds that the term "licensing" mentioned in the Convention cannot be understood as excluding in any way a public television monopoly as such; whereas, consequently, an examination of the substances of this part of the application, including an examination ex officio, does not show any appearance of a violation of the provisions of the Convention, and in particular of Article 10 (Art. 10); Whereas, furthermore, in connection with this general complaint the Applicant has referred, by way of example, to four incidents which allegedly show that the existing radio and television system does not give an individual sufficient possibilities of replying to incorrect statements made in radio or television programmes; whereas he has not made it entirely clear whether he also wishes to put forward these incidents as the basis of separate complaints; Whereas, on the presumption that these incidents are so to be considered, the Commission notes that certain of the radio and television programmes to which the Applicant refers concerned him personally; whereas he alleges that, in these instances, he was not given a chance to present his opinions and actions in a fair and correct manner to a radio and television audience; whereas, however, these incidents took place in 1957, 1959 and 1965; whereas Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken"; Whereas the present application was not submitted to the Commission until 15th February, 1967, that is more than six months after the actions of the radio and television corporation to which the Applicant refers and whereas no further remedies or decisions followed at a later date; whereas furthermore an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that these parts of the Application have been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention); Whereas the Applicant also refers to a television programme broadcast in early 1967; whereas, however, on the same presumption that this incident is also to be considered as a separate complaint, the Commission has taken into consideration the fact that this programme related to the enterprise set up in Liberia by a Swedish company; Whereas in this respect it is to be observed that, according to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, the Commission may receive petitions from any person "claiming to be the victim" of a violation of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Convention; whereas the Applicant has not alleged that the allegedly incorrect television reports on the L. enterprise in any way concerned him personally and affected him in relation to one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas it follows that, in regard to this incident, the conditions under which the Commission may receive an Application from an individual are not satisfied; and whereas therefore, this part of the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and whereas consequently it must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention; Now therefore the Commission declares this application inadmissible.