CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 2 October 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26826/16 RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. against Slovakia lodged on 11 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant company, a multimedia publishing house, on account of a sanction (500 euros) imposed for having broadcast a short online spot about a well-known Slovak singer, containing the latter’s comments about his use of marijuana. In the proceedings initiated ex officio , the Broadcasting Council regarded the interview together with the journalist’s comments as a ‘promotion of drugs’, underlining that the journalist had failed to distance herself from the singer’s comments and that she had rather tried to lighten the issue. Such reasoning was approved by the Supreme Court and by the Constitutional Court; the latter added that given the entertaining character and the structure of the broadcasting at issue, it could not be considered as a contribution to a public debate. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that it had been sanctioned for having performed its task to impart other persons’ statements and for having chosen a certain technique of reporting. In its opinion, the national authorities interpreted the term ‘promotion of drugs’ too extensively and did not take into account the context of the programme nor the position expressed by the journalist.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant company suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Sylka v. Poland (dec.), no. 19219/07, 3 June 2014)   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?