Fine for a TV interview about legalizing marijuana! Violation of freedom of expression!
JUDGMENT
Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia 23.09.2021 (no. 4) (app. no. 26826/16)
SUMMARY
A famous singer allegedly expressed support for marijuana legalisation and the journalist allegedly appeared to agree with him resulting in the
broadcaster being fined.
The Court found in particular that the journalist had not intended to praise marijuana or incite its
use, merely to report a celebrity’s views on a topic of public interest. The fine issued had thus been
disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society.
The ECtHR unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court awarded the applicant EUR 500 in respect of damages, EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,317 in respect of costs and expenses.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s., (now known as News and Media Holding, a.s.), is a
Slovak company which was established in 1990 and is registered in Bratislava.
On 13 July 2012 the applicant company put a programme called “[X.] at [the music awards]: Did he
want to shock when he [was thankful] for the weed?” on its streaming service. X is a popular Slovak
singer. In the programme there were clips of X. smoking, along with an interview in which the
journalist said: “This weed is already well known to the Slovak people, no need to introduce it.”; X.
replied: “I’m thankful for the magic green weed. I would exchange it. I would ban alcohol and allow
marijuana.”; the journalist laughed in response.
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. Following court
proceedings in which the applicant company argued that it had not approved X.’s opinions, the initial
decision was quashed.
A second decision against the applicant company was issued by the Broadcasting Council in 2014.
The applicant company appealed. That decision was upheld with reference to the Court’s case-law
by the Supreme Court, which stated that the applicant company “had to bear objective (strict)
liability for the manner of processing the information and its content, which should not have
breached the constitutional and legal framework for the protection of society”.
A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant company was dismissed as manifestly illfounded.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicant complained that
fining it for the content of one of its programmes had violated its rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 10
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.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Slovakia was to pay the applicant 500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage, EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,317 in respect of costs and
expenses.
