THE FACTS The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows: 1. The first applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1910 and resident in B. The second applicant is an association founded by him on .. May 1968 and run by him as an "absolute controller" solely responsible for its operation, finance and policy. The main objects of the association are to "gather together in a single organisation all British people who wish to determine the destiny of Britain" and "to demand that in all matters affecting the British way of life and the British Constitution the issue shall be determined directly by the people of Britain". 2. In the original submissions the applicants complain that the association has consistently been refused an opportunity to put forward its point of view on both the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and independent television networks. It is contended that this interferes with the right under Article 10 of the Convention to impart information. 3. The applicants submit that so far as the BBC is concerned, the refusal to allow them broadcasting time is contained in a series of letters between .. December 1969 and .. January 1970. The position adopted by the BBC in this correspondence was that the "usual criteria (i.e. the grounds for allowing broadcasting time) are representation in Parliament or (at election time) the number of parliamentary candidates in the field". According to the applicants, this provision automatically excludes them from expressing their point of view on the air as the association does not put forward candidates for election. In the applicant's submission, this restriction by the BBC is made in agreement with and by the authority of the respondent Government. 4. In ... 1970, the association applied to Westward Television Ltd. to purchase advertising time. On .. January 1970 the company replied that, while it seemed that the association was not a political party as it did not intend to put up candidates for election, a number of the objects of the association were obviously concerned with political issues. It would therefore be unable to advertise on Westward Television. In this connection reference was made to the following provision in the Independent Television Code of Advertising Standards and Practice (April 1969): "No advertisement may be inserted by or on behalf of any body, the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, and advertisements must not be directed towards any religious or political end or have any relation to any industrial dispute." This provision refers to and is virtually identical with Schedule 2, paragraph 8 to the Television Act 1964. This Act governs the constitution and powers of the Independent Television Authority whose function under the Act is to provide television broadcasting services, additional to those of the BBC. On .. January 1970 the Independent Television Companies Association Ltd. to whom the matter had been referred confirmed the position taken by Westward Television. The applicants then wrote to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications asking that Schedule 2, paragraph 8 of the 1964 Act should be repealed as it was in conflict with Article 10 of the Convention. In a letter of .. March 1970 the Ministry stated that the clause concerned served "to prevent the exponents of political views with the longest purse - whoever these may be - from having an advantage in terms of buying time on television to promote their cause". If the clause did not exist, less well endowed parties or movements would have great difficulty in maintaining their point of view in the face of massive purchase of advertising time by their opponents. In the Ministry's opinion, this safeguard was covered by Article 10 (2) of the Convention as being necessary "for the protection of the ... rights of others". The applicants then requested certain clarifications of this statement but were informed by the Ministry on 24 April 1970 that there was nothing to add. 5. In a further submission to the Commission dated 15 March 1971, the applicants have made further allegations and complaints. Referring to the general election which had taken place in June 1970 subsequent to the introduction of the application, the applicants claim that the conduct of this election demonstrates not only the substance of their complaint but also its clear effects in practical conditions. The applicants recall that the main political parties are given broadcasting time in proportion to their respective strength in the House of Commons. The applicants maintain that during the official election period the "Party Political Broadcasters" continued right up to polling day. However, other political parties with several candidates in the field were not provided with similar broadcasting facilities. In the applicants' opinion, these broadcasts during the election period were illegal according to the Representation of the People Act 1949 and later amendments. As such broadcasting time is provided free, this constitutes a contribution to party political funds which is not available to any political party or organisation not represented in Parliament. The applicants further submit that although provision is made for the conduct of an election to be challenged, an elector is required to first give security in the sum of £1,000 in violation of Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 6. In the submission of 15 March 1971, the applicants sum up their specific complaints and allege that there is a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on the following grounds: - Prohibition of political advertising by the Television Act 1964, Schedule 2, paragraph 8; - This prohibition has even greater significance when the major political parties reserve to themselves exclusively the right to broadcasting time. In the case of television this broadcasting is carried out simultaneously on all channels; - This special facility when used illegally during the period of an election not only violates Article 10 but also Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention; - There is no effective remedy before a national authority because either such an authority does not exist or remedies through official channels are made difficult or impossible by onerous legal provisions and discrimination in violation of Article 14; - Not only has the respondent Government failed to carry out is obligations under the Convention but it has conspired with special interests in Britain to restrict the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. THE LAW 1. The applicants have complained of the refusal of the BBC to allow the applicant Association broadcasting time and alleged thereby a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention. However, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, the Commission may only admit an application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals, where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the Commission. The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications against private individuals or bodies whose acts do not entail the responsibility of a Contracting Party under the Convention. In the present case, the question arises whether the respondent Government could be held responsible under the Convention for any acts of the BBC (see No. 3059/67 Collection of Decisions, Vol. 28, p. 89). However, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine this issue in the circumstances of the present application as, even assuming that the allegations made by the applicants could involve such responsibility, this part of the application is, in any event, inadmissible on other grounds. 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 and television in order to forward its opinion. On the other and, 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 alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 10, 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. In the present case, the Commission finds, however, that the applicants have failed to establish the existence of any such particular circumstances. An examination of this complaint, as it has been submitted, does not therefore disclose the appearance of a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention or any other provisions thereof. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. 2. The applicants have also complained of the legislation which prevents the independent television network in the United Kingdom from accepting advertisements of a political nature. The Commission has again considered this complaint under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention. The Commission notes that, apart from the limitations on the exercise of the freedom of expression set out in paragraph (2) of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), paragraph (1) of the Article (Art. 10-1) provides that this "Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises". The Commission considers that the notion of licensing implies that, in granting licence, the State may subject radio and television broadcasting to certain regulations. In this context the practice in different member States of the Council of Europe should be taken into consideration. It is clear that a number of these States do not permit any advertising at all on radio and television, whereas other member States allow such advertising but have, at the same time, laid down rules concerning the types of advertisements admitted. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the provisions of Article 10 (1) (Art. 10-1) should be interpreted as permitting the State, in granting licence, to exclude, as in the present case, certain specified categories of advertisements. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. 3. The Commission has finally examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints which relate to the conduct of the general elections in the United Kingdom in 1970. However, after considering these complaints as a whole, the Commission finds that they do not generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. It follows that the remainder of the application is as a whole also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE