The discontinuance of “political platform” programs on state run television did not infringe on the applicant political union’s freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Associazione Politica Nazionale Lista Marco Pannella and Radicali Italiani v. Italy 31.08.21 (app. no. 20002/13)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the discontinuance of certain political programmes, known as “political
platforms”, on State-run television. The applicants were two political associations complaining of a
breach of their right to impart their ideas and opinions.
The Court noted that the programmes had been discontinued as a result of inaction on the part of
the “oversight commission” – a political body expressing the wishes of the Italian Parliament as
regards public-service broadcasting – which had stopped providing the RAI channels with the
instructions needed to organise the political broadcasts in question. It had thus been a political
choice, within the discretion of Parliament.
The format of the programmes had dated back to the early 1970s, when the societal context was
very different from that of today. All political groups and parties which had taken part, without
distinction, had been affected by the consequences of the discontinuance. The gradual replacement
of these “political platforms” by more in-depth political debates had given the RAI greater editorial
freedom. Thus the public-service broadcasting system now afforded other possibilities for imparting
political ideas and opinions on the television. The discontinuance of the “political platform” thus had
to be seen in the context of the general evolution of State-run broadcasting in Italy.
The Court observed, however, that the applicant association had not had an effective legal remedy
for the purpose of challenging the discontinuance of the programmes in question.
PROVISIONS
Article 10
Article 13
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Associazione Politica Nazionale Lista Marco Pannella and Radicali Italiani, are two
Italian political associations whose head offices are in Rome. They argued that the discontinuance of
a television programme consisting of political debate had breached their right to freely impart their
opinions and ideas.
As regards the relevant legislation, the provisions specific to Italian broadcasting distinguish between
two categories of programme. Political “communication” programmes, which include “electoral
platforms”, organised in the pre-election period, and “political platforms”, broadcast as part of ordinary programming. There are also “news” programmes, dealing with current affairs, society and politics.
The legislature has entrusted the task of controlling the programming and activity of television
channels to two bodies: the parliamentary commission for the general oversight and supervision of
radio and television broadcasting (Commissione Parlamentare per l’indirizzo generale e la vigilanza
dei servizi radiotelevisivi – “the oversight commission”) and the authority for communications
safeguards (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni – “AGCOM”). The oversight commission
conveys the intentions of Parliament in matters of public-service broadcasting. AGCOM is an
independent administrative authority exercising regulatory and supervisory functions in the
telecommunications and audiovisual sectors.
On 21 November 2007 the oversight commission issued instructions to the RAI for the last round of
“political platforms” to be held before the elections. Following the 2008 parliamentary elections, the
composition of the oversight commission was renewed and the new commission failed to provide
the RAI with the necessary instructions for the organisation of a new round of political
communication programmes. As a result, the “political platform” programmes were no longer
scheduled.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the first applicant association complained about the
discontinuance of certain political programmes, which it claimed had been the result of inaction by
the oversight commission. It argued that its right to freely impart its ideas and opinions had been
breached.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court found that the association Radicali Italiani, the second applicant, had not shown how it
had been directly affected by the discontinuance of the “political platform” programmes and
concluded that its complaint had been directed in the abstract against the alleged omissions of the
national authorities. The second applicant could not therefore claim, under Article 34 of the
Convention, to be a victim of the situation complained of and its application thus had to be rejected,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Article 10
The Court observed that, outside election periods, the organisation of “political platforms” on Staterun channels required an instruction from a parliamentary body, namely the oversight commission, while the initiative for news programmes fell within the editorial autonomy of each channel and
each television newsroom, subject to compliance with the general principles of impartiality and
pluralism of information.
The Court noted that the discontinuance of the “political platforms” had been the result of inaction
on the part of the oversight commission – a political body expressing the wishes of the Italian
Parliament as regards public-service broadcasting – which had stopped providing the RAI with the
instructions needed to organise the programmes at issue. It had thus been a political choice, within
the discretion of Parliament. The Court thus had to ascertain whether the effects of the
discontinuance of those broadcasts on the first applicant’s freedom of expression were compatible
with the Convention.
The Court noted, firstly, that the format of the “political platform” programmes dated back to the
early 1970s, when the societal context had been very different from that of today. The applicant
association had not been the only “political subject” to be affected by the discontinuance of those
programmes: all political groups and parties which had taken part in them, without distinction, had
sustained the consequences of the discontinuance. It would have been different if the refusal to
allow air time for a given political party had been decided at the same time as allowing the
broadcasting of the opinions of others, thus creating a disparity which might have breached Article
10 of the Convention. The gradual replacement of these “political platforms” by more in-depth
political debates had given the RAI greater editorial freedom. Thus the public-service broadcasting
system now afforded other possibilities for imparting political ideas and opinions on the television.
The Court therefore took the view that the discontinuance of the “political platform” programme
had to be seen in the context of the general evolution of State-run radio and television broadcasting
in Italy. This evolution consisted in a gradual reduction in the role of the political authority and
recognition of the editorial autonomy of each channel and of the newsrooms responsible for news
programming, with the aim of promoting the impartiality, objectivity and pluralism of information.
The Court’s conclusion was that the discontinuance of the “political platform” broadcasts had not
deprived the applicant association of the possibility of imparting its opinions and that there had
been no disproportionate breach of its right to freedom of expression.
There had thus been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Article 13
The Court noted that the domestic courts had taken the view that, as a parliamentary body, the
oversight commission expressed the wishes of the Italian Parliament and that its actions were thus
of a political nature. Decisions taken by this body under Law no. 103 of 1975 were not administrative
but political.
In respect of the discontinuance of the television programmes in question, the Court found that the
applicant association had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy.
There had thus been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the nonpecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant and that the respondent state is to pay the first applicant EUR 127 for costs and expenses.
