GROPPERA RADIO AG AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS 38 CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS (Translation) Like the majority of the Court I consider that there has been no breach of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, but for different, simpler reasons. It seems to me that the issue raised is one that in all events does not come within the ambit of Article 10 (art. 10). That provision refers to "freedom of expression", defined as including "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers". Can the view really be taken that this case raises an issue of freedom of expression, and in particular of the imparting of information and ideas? What was actually broadcast by the radio station in question? According to its own representative, Mr Minelli, at the public hearing on 21 November 1989, it broadcast light music, variety programmes, news and programmes in which listeners could take part. Apart from the news programmes, which were clearly bulletins of the type usual in broadcasts of this kind, these programmes were therefore essentially light entertainment and contained none of the kind of discussion or mere airing of views and expression of ideas or cultural or artistic events with which Article 10 (art. 10) is concerned. Mr Minelli moreover specified that the programming left political problems untouched and aimed to provide entertainment but also an opportunity for the expression of personal opinions on personal matters. This is far from the discussion of ideas and artistic expression. Besides, the radio station's essentially commercial objective accounts for the emphasis on mere entertainment in its programmes. Article 10 (art. 10) is certainly not designed to protect either commercial operations or mere entertainment. I therefore conclude that no issue arises under it and that consequently there can be no question of a breach in this case.