27 GROPPERA RADIO AG AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA (Translation) 1. I concur with the majority in the result. 2. I voted in support of the view that there had not been a breach of Article 10 solely on the basis of the third sentence of paragraph 1 (art. 101): "the procedure chosen could well appear necessary in order to prevent evasion of the law", as "a measure taken against a station which the Swiss authorities could reasonably hold to be in reality a Swiss station operating from the other side of the border in order to circumvent the statutory telecommunications system in force in Switzerland" (see paragraph 73 of the judgment). 3. In my opinion, the lack of any licence in itself justified the interference. We do not need to invoke paragraph 2 (art. 10-2). "National licensing systems are required not only for the orderly regulation of broadcasting enterprises at the national level but also in large part to give effect to international rules, including in particular number 2020 of the Radio Regulations" (see paragraph 60 of the judgment). 4. To my profound regret, I cannot accept paragraph 61 of the judgment. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to reason on the basis of the drafting history of a later instrument drawn up within a different community (the UN), not within the Council of Europe. The third sentence is there; it has a meaning and authorises the methodical regulation of broadcasting in Switzerland. To make licensing measures subject to the requirements of paragraph 2 (art. 10-2) would render the content of the third sentence of paragraph 1 (art. 10-1) nugatory. The fact that the sentence was not included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is of no importance when interpreting paragraph 1 of Article 10 (art. 10-1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in which it does occur. 5. There is no need for me to criticise paragraphs 65-73 of the judgment with a view to accepting or rejecting them, but I have serious difficulty in subscribing to the reasoning in paragraph 68. There was indeed no publication in the Swiss official gazette. I honestly doubt whether what may be acceptable in respect of European Community legislation included in the Community's Official Journal - which is regarded as an official gazette in the member States too - can be acceptable in respect of other international instruments. 6. In conclusion, there was no breach of Article 10 (art. 10) because no licence had been issued by the Swiss authorities (last sentence of paragraph 1) (art. 10-1).