15 Oct Fine for an interview mentioning marijuana use violated the Convention

In the case of Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 4) (application no. 26826/16, 23.09.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. is a Slovak company which was established in 1990 and is registered in Bratislava. The case concerned an applicant’s television programme, in which a famous singer allegedly expressed support for marijuana legalisation and the journalist allegedly appeared to agree with him.  Administrative proceedings were opened against the applicant company as a result of this programme, with it being fined in 2012 for breaching a ban on promoting drug use. A second decision against the applicant company was issued by the Broadcasting Council in 2014. 

The applicant company argued that it had merely presented X.’s opinions to inform the public about a matter of public interest.

The Court accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression, and so decided to determine whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. The Court emphasised, in particular, the fact that the statements had not been made by the applicant company itself, but by an entertainer in an interview.

Owing to its importance to democracy, the Court reiterated that journalism is subject to Article 10 protections within limits. Punishment of a journalist for disseminating the views of another should not happen without very good reasons.

The Court noted that the programme in question had been on a topical event and had contributed to a debate of public interest. The Court did not believe that the journalist had intended to praise marijuana or incite its use. It stated that the domestic courts’ interpretation of the exchange had been particularly rigid, with an absence of necessary assessment of all relevant factors. It had not been shown that the applicant company had acted in bad faith or irresponsibly. In conclusion, the Court found that the fine had been disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, leading to a violation of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights