76 also, has understood that “[a]s regards licensing procedures in particular, the Court reiterates that the manner in which the licensing criteria are applied in the licensing process must provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, including the proper reasoning by the licensing authority of its decisions denying a broadcasting licence.”301 The European Court has also indicated “that a licensing procedure whereby the licensing authority gives no reasons for its decisions does not provide adequate protection against arbitrary interferences by a public authority with the fundamental right to freedom of expression.302 245. In this case, both the Commission and the representatives argued that the legal framework of the procedure for the renewal of the concession was not established clearly in domestic law. In addition, they presented arguments concerning the presumed failure to comply with other judicial guarantees, such as the right to a hearing and the right to a reasoned decision. However, throughout these contentious proceedings, Venezuela has argued that the law did establish specific procedures for both the transformation of the titles and the renewal of the concession, but the State had chosen not to use them because it took the decision to reserve to itself the use of the spectrum when the initial concession expired. Based on the foregoing, and in order to determine whether Article 8(1) of the Convention was violated, the Court will examine, first, the legal framework in order to determine whether or not legal procedures existed. If they did exist, the Court will then evaluate the reasons given by the State to justify why those procedures were not applied. 246. Regarding the transformation of the titles, the Court underlines that article 210 of the LOTEL (supra para. 73) established the procedure to be followed by determining that it was necessary to prepare “special timetables for the transformation of the current concessions and permissions granted under the previous laws, into the administrative authorizations, concessions or notification obligations or registrations established in [the said] law.” This article also stipulated the procedural terms and conditions for requesting the transformation of titles and the general approval procedure. Thus, the purpose of the request presented by RCTV on June 5, 2002 (supra para. 87) was “the transformation of the titles granted to RCTV prior to the entry into force of the [LOTEL, and it therefore asked to be granted the] administrative authorization for a for-profit free-to-air television station and the concession for the use and exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum.”303 247. The Court also notes that the LOTEL established general provisions for the concession renewal procedure. These provisions refer to the duration of concessions and to the possibility that they may be renewed for equal periods of time “provided that the holder of the concession has complied with the provisions established in [the said] law, its regulations, the General Conditions established by the National Telecommunications Commission and in the respective authorization.”304 In addition, it established that, by “concession” was understood the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, indicating that this “is a unilateral administrative act by which […] (CONATEL) grants or renews, for a limited time, to a natural or legal person, the condition of concessionaire for the use and exploitation of a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, following fulfillment of the legally established requirements.”305 It also stipulated that renewals of the concessions “would following the general rules contained in [the LOTEL].”306 301 ECHR, Meltex Ltd. & Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia (No. 32283/04), Judgment of June 17, 2008, para. 81. 302 ECHR, Meltex Ltd. & Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia (No. 32283/04), Judgment of June 17, 2008, para. 83. Transformation request submitted to CONATEL by RCTV on June 5, 2002. The request was signed by Oswaldo José Quintana Cardona, in his capacity as “legal representative of the commercial company RCTV” (evidence file, folios 3053 a 3057). 303 304 Telecommunications Organic Law of June 12, 2000, article 21 (evidence file, folio 219). 305 Telecommunications Organic Law of June 12, 2000, article 73 (evidence file, folio 239). 306 Telecommunications Organic Law of June 12, 2000, article 210(4) (evidence file, folio 280).