CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .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 8 July 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25175/15 Julius JÚLIUS PERESZLÉNYI-SERVIS TV-VIDEO against Slovakia lodged on 13 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant company, a private regional television station operating in a Slovak region where 70-80% of the population belongs to the Hungarian minority. The impugned interference consists of a decision of the National Broadcasting Council of 26 February 2013, confirmed by the Supreme Court judgment of 21 May 2014, by virtue of which the applicant company was fined of 165 EUR for having broadcasted a TV programme including an interview in Hungarian that was not translated or subtitled in Slovak, in breach of the relevant provisions of the Act on Broadcasting and Retransmission and of the Act on the State Language as in force at the material time. According to the applicant company, the above-mentioned fine and the relevant legislation amounted also to discrimination on the grounds of language and association with a national minority, given that any broadcasting in Hungarian had to be translated or subtitled in Slovak while there was no corresponding obligation to subtitle or translate Slovak broadcasting into Hungarian. Lastly, the applicant company complains about a violation of its right to a fair trial since both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court failed to respond to its arguments related to violation of its rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, was the impugned interference necessary in terms of Article 10 §   2?   2.     Has the applicant company suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its freedom of expression on the ground of language and/or association with a national minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant company’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the courts’ failure to respond to its arguments related to violation of its rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights?