CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 24 February 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 20099/24 SIA TVNET GRUPA against Latvia lodged on 16 July 2024 communicated on 3 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a private limited liability company (the applicant company) which owns an online news portal rus.tvnet.lv. On 5 April 2023 the National Electronic Mass Media Council ( Nacionālā Elektronisko Plašsaziņas Līdzekļu Padome – “the NEPLP”) initiated administrative-offence proceedings (no. 18012000000723-1) against the applicant company, and by a decision of 22 May 2023 imposed an administrative fine in the amount of 8,500 euros (EUR) on the applicant company for failing to respect the principle of due accuracy and impartiality ( pienācīgas precizitātes un neitralitātes princips) by using the term “deportation” in a manner contrary to its meaning by a person who was interviewed and two journalists conducting a live interview in Russian; the interview was published on rus.tvnet.lv on 29 March 2023. The applicant company lodged an appeal against that decision with the domestic courts, arguing that its right to freedom of expression had been violated. By a final judgment of 22 March 2024, the Riga Regional Court upheld that decision but reduced the amount of the fine to EUR   3,000. The applicant company alleges a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article   10 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the administrative-offence proceedings against it, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?