56 it supposes a restriction, must necessarily be subjected to the principles and requirements of freedom of expression. I have already indicated that freedom of expression exercises a dominant permeating effect on the scope of such functions.245 166. On this issue, the European Court has indicated in its case law that States are permitted to control broadcasting in their territories, and particularly the technical aspects, by a licensing system.246 Additionally, since the case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, the European Court reiterated that, in addition to the importance of the technical aspects, “the grant or refusal of a licence may also be made conditional on other considerations, including such matters as the nature and objectives of a proposed station, its potential audience at national, regional or local level, the rights and needs of a specific audience and the obligations deriving from international legal instruments.”247 167. Furthermore, in its General Comment No. 34, the United Nations Human Rights Committee referred to the need for the general safeguards or guarantees in the processes for the concession and renewal of licenses. In particular, the Committee indicated that: 248 States parties must avoid imposing onerous licensing conditions and fees on the broadcast media, including on community and commercial stations.249 The criteria for the application of such conditions and licence fees should be reasonable and objective,250, clear,251 transparent,252 non-discriminatory and otherwise in compliance with the Covenant.253 Licensing regimes for broadcasting via media with limited capacity, such as audiovisual terrestrial and satellite services should provide for an equitable allocation of access and frequencies between public, commercial and community broadcasters. It is recommended that States parties that have not already done so should establish an independent and public broadcasting licensing authority, with the power to examine broadcasting applications and to grant licenses.254 168. Similarly, the European Court has attempted to reiterate and include the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the cases of Glas Nadezhda Eood and Elenkov v. Bulgaria and Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia, when indicating that “[t]he guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the broadcasting regulation domain call for open and transparent application of the regulations governing the licensing procedure and specifically recommend that ‘all decisions taken […] by the regulatory authorities […] be […] duly reasoned [and] open to review by the competent jurisdictions.’”255 245 Opinion of expert witness Cifuentes Muñoz during the public hearing in this case. See, for example, ECHR, Case of Groppera Radio AG et al. v. Switzerland [Grand Chamber], (No. 10890/84), Judgment of March 28, 1990, para. 61; ECHR, Case of Informationsverein Lentia et al. v. Austria, (No. 13914/88; 15041/89; 15717/89; 15779/89; 17207/90), Judgment of November 24, 1993, para.32; ECHR, Case of Glas Nadezhda Eood and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, (No. 14134/02), Judgment of October 11, 2007, para. 44. In the latter case, the European Court indicated that “States are permitted to regulate by means of a licensing system the way in which broadcasting is organized in their territories, particularly in its technical aspects.” 246 Cf. ECHR, Case of Informationsverein Lentia et al. v. Austria, (No. 13914/88; 15041/89; 15717/89; 15779/89; 17207/90), Judgment of November 24, 1993, para.32; ECHR, Case of ABC v. Austria, (No.109/1996/728/925), Judgment of October 20, 1997, para. 33, and ECHR, Case of Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy, (No. 38433/09), Judgment of June 7, 2012, para.139. 247 248 General Comment No. 34, para. 39 249 Concluding observations on Gambia (CCPR/CO/75/GMB). 250 Concluding observations on Lebanon (CCPR/CO/79/Add.78), para. 25. Concluding observations (CCPR/CO/73/UKR). 251 on Kuwait (CCPR/CO/69/KWT), 252 Concluding observations on Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/CO/69/KGZ). 253 Concluding observations on Ukraine (CCPR/CO/73/UKR). 254 Concluding observations on Lebanon (CCPR/CO/79/Add.78). and Concluding observations on Ukraine ECHR, Case of Glas Nadezhda Eood and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, (No. 14134/02), Judgment of October 11, 2007, para. 51, and ECHR, Case of Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia, (No. 32283/04), Judgment of June 17, 2008, para. 83. 255