GROPPERA RADIO AG AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND JUDGMENT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI 28 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI (Translation) I do not agree with the majority of the Court as to the interpretation of paragraph 1 (art. 10-1) or paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), or as to the result, and I voted in support of the view that there had been a breach. To my mind, the error which led the majority to its decision was to have confused to some extent the technical and legal aspects of the issues relating to broadcasting, reception, transfrontier and national frequencies, the international VHF system and the rules governing cable networks. This distinction, however, was an essential one for assessing the parties' relations and the application of Article 10 (art. 10) to the instant case. Belton s.r.l., which was in charge of the Pizzo Groppera station and in which the rights of management were vested for a given period, was an Italian company with its headquarters at Como (Italy). Distinguishing between broadcasting and reception is a vital principle in the telecommunications field. The guiding principles may be summed up as follows: (1) Broadcasting and reception are two separate things, except where the equipment, the place of broadcasting and the area of reception are indivisible. (2) The distinction must be applied in respect both of jurisdiction where damage is alleged and of the application of national and international rules. The central question was: in what way was the Maur co-operative's transmission by cable of programmes from the Pizzo Groppera transmitter unlawful or contrary to Swiss public order? How could the Maur co-operative comply with the authorities' order to it? The answers to these questions would no doubt establish that what was in issue was the content of the broadcasts. But even in that case, how could the content have been altered to make it acceptable: by means of a quota of local news, cantonal music or advertising? It is clear that such an order cannot fairly be made unless the recipient can comply with the legislation and regulations. In recent European cases dealing with jurisdiction, copyright and tortious damage the applicable rules and systems have been looked at and analysed and the distinctions to be made according to various eventualities have been highlighted: (a) the broadcasting itself is contrary to national law, or else reception is; (b) the transmission across a frontier of a broadcast that is unlawful at national level or lawful and causing damage (cf. SNEP c. CLT judgment of