GROPPERA RADIO AG AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER 36 relevant and sufficient3; or else are non-discriminatory distinctions, that is to say distinctions which are objectively and reasonably justified and likewise proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued4. II. The right to freedom of expression exists "regardless of frontiers". In the field of radio and television broadcasting, it follows from this that the broadcasting of programmes that can be received on the territory of other States and the reception of programmes broadcast from the territory of other States can, as such, be made subject to exclusions or restrictions. This is so, however, only if the exclusions or restrictions were quite as justified and necessary in respect of programmes broadcast or received only within the frontiers of the State taking the measures and if the measures were also applied to such programmes. III. In the instant case there is no doubt that by prohibiting the retransmission of the broadcasts in issue, which they considered to be unlawful, the authorities of the respondent State were, in all good faith, pursuing legitimate aims, and more particularly "the prevention of disorder" and the "protection of the rights of others"5. But it was not certain that these broadcasts were unlawful. They were still the subject of proceedings in Italy and, moreover, none of the methods of settlement provided for in Article 50 of the International Telecommunication Convention had been used6. "Due regard being had to the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society"7, such unlawfulness could not, so long as it had not been established with certainty, be relied on to justify the ban on retransmitting the programmes8 or, a fortiori, the need for such a ban in a democratic society. See the following judgments: Handyside, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, pp. 22-24, §§ 48-50; The Sunday Times, 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, pp. 36 and 38, §§ 59 and 62; Barthold, 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 25, § 55; Lingens, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, pp. 25-26, §§ 39-40; and Müller and Others, 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 21, § 32. 4 See the following judgments: Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium", 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, p. 24, § 10; Marckx, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 16, § 33; Rasmussen, 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 14, § 38; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 35-36, § 72; James and Others, 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 44, § 75; Lithgow and Others, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 66, § 177; Gillow, 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, pp. 25-26, § 64; and Inze, 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 41. 5 See paragraphs 69 and 70 of the judgment. 6 See paragraphs 26-32 of the judgment and the extract of the Swiss Federal Court's decision of 14 June 1985, reproduced in paragraph 25. 7 Barfod judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28. (See also the Barthold judgment previously cited, p. 26, § 58, and the previously cited judgments in the cases of Handyside, p. 23, § 49, The Sunday Times, p. 40, § 65, Lingens, p. 26, § 41, and Müller and Others, p. 21, § 32. 3