37 GROPPERA RADIO AG AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER Since the respondent State did not put forward any other justification, there was, in my opinion, a breach of the applicants' right to freedom of expression. Ultimately, even if the unlawfulness of the broadcasts in issue had been duly established, it could not have sufficed on its own to justify the ban on retransmitting the programmes. It would still have been necessary to show why, in March and July 19849, it was essential to put an end to the reception, via a local cable network10, of programmes broadcast from the territory of another State and which had in fact, since November 1979, been able to be received over a wide area of the respondent State's territory, containing nearly a third of the State's population11, when, in particular, the financial viability of the broadcasts in issue had already been seriously jeopardised by the operation since November 1983 of local radio stations, which had been made legal in June 198212. See paragraphs 149-157 of the Commission's report. See paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment. 10 According to Mr Jacot-Guillarmod's reply to Mr Walsh, at the end of the hearing on 21 November 1989, there were not very many subscribers to this network. 11 See paragraph 11 of the judgment. 12 See paragraphs 13-16 of the judgment. See also the Federal Court's decision cited in paragraph 25. 8 9