The broadcaster’s obligation to ensure the objectivity of news programmes protects not only the individual but also the public’s right to a diversity of information

On 31st March 2026, The Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment Case No. 2Stk/13/2025, amended the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Administrative Court’), by which the Administrative Court had set aside the decision of the Council for Media Services (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Council’) concerning the imposition of a sanction – a warning regarding a breach of Act No. 308/2000 Coll. on Broadcasting and Retransmission and amending Act No. 195/2000 Coll. on Telecommunications, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act on Broadcasting and Retransmission’), thereby dismissing the action brought by the legal predecessor of Slovak Television and Radio (hereinafter referred to as ‘STVR’). The Cassation Court held that reporting on a breach of legislation in which a specific entity is depicted, without clearly indicating that the footage is illustrative, may lead to the conclusion that it is precisely that entity which is committing the breach. Such a depiction infringes not only the rights of the entity depicted, but also those of the programme’s audience, who are prevented from forming their own independent judgement based on an objective presentation.

In November 2021, STVR’s legal predecessor broadcast a report entitled ‘Rebellious Establishments’, in which it reported on a restaurant that had remained open despite the ban during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report featured footage of two different restaurants without stating that the footage of one of them was merely illustrative; viewers could therefore have been given the false impression that the restaurant shown in the illustrative footage was the one failing to comply with anti-pandemic measures. The Council found that such conduct had failed to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the news programme and imposed a sanction on STVR’s legal predecessor – a warning for breaching the law.

STVR’s legal predecessor brought an action before the Administrative Court, which quashed the decision on the sanction and referred the matter back to the Council for further proceedings. According to the Administrative Court, the inappropriate illustrative footage was not sufficient to undermine the objectivity and impartiality of the news programme to the extent that it would constitute an infringement of STVR’s legal predecessor’s freedom of expression. It concluded that if the restaurant felt aggrieved by the programme in question, it could have utilised individual remedies. However, these cannot be replaced by proceedings under the Act on Broadcasting and Retransmission, nor can sanctions be imposed by the Council in the exercise of its public authority.

The Council lodged an appeal against the Administrative Court’s judgement. It cited decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which have repeatedly confirmed the public’s right to balanced and impartial information on matters of public interest in news programmes, whilst the state has a duty to ensure that the public has access to impartial and accurate information via television and radio.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that, by presenting the report in a manner creating the one-sided impression that it concerned the establishment shown, the balance of the content was not maintained, thereby affecting the objectivity of the news programme. The part of the report in which the establishment is shown, accompanied by the presenter’s commentary stating that the restaurant had decided to protest and that the owner refused to close, creates, through this presentation, a one-sided impression that the report concerns the restaurant shown. The objectivity of the news coverage is not ensured when a specific establishment is shown alongside text referring to a breach of the legal provisions in force at the time. The broadcaster’s obligation to ensure the objectivity of the news programme serves not only to protect the specific establishment, but also the public’s right to a plurality of information within the news programme.

Reporting on a breach of the law in which a specific entity is depicted, without clearly indicating that the image is for illustrative purposes only, may lead to the conclusion that it is precisely this entity that is breaching the law. Such a depiction infringes not only the rights of the entity depicted, but also those of the programme’s audience, who are prevented from forming their own independent judgement. Under Article 26(4) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the dissemination of such information cannot be regarded as consistent with the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and with public order. The broadcaster’s freedom of expression is not absolute and, according to the Court of Cassation, the contested part of the report, from the point of view of objectivity, fell within the exception to the restriction on the right to freedom of expression under Article 26(4) of the Constitution.

The manner in which the report was presented in the case under consideration came into conflict with the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, to whom, within the meaning of Section 16(3)(b) of the Act on Broadcasting and Retransmission, STVR’s legal predecessor, in its capacity as a broadcaster, was obliged to ensure objective reporting. Due to the Administrative Court’s incorrect legal assessment of the case, the Council’s cassation complaint was, in the view of the Supreme Administrative Court, well-founded. Having regard to the legality of the defendant’s decision in the part that was challenged before the administrative court, and finding no other irregularities which the administrative courts are required to take into account ex officio, the Court of Cassation ruled by amending the administrative court’s judgment to dismiss the action.

This judgment was adopted unanimously by the Supreme Administrative Court; no further appeal is admissible against it.

The decision was taken by Panel No. 2 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: the President of the Panel, Prof. JUDr. Juraj Vačok, PhD, and the members of the Panel, JUDr. Elena Berthotyová, PhD, and JUDr. Marián Trenčan.