Konvencijsko varstvo glede komentiranja novinarskega dela s strani politikov

Rozina, Žiga (author), Zagorc, Saša (mentor)

Avtor se v okviru naloge ukvarja s problematiko meje dopustne kritike, ki je s strani politika usmerjena zoper novinarja ali medijsko hišo. V ta namen uvodoma predstavi obseg varstva svobode izražanja, kot izhaja iz 10. člena Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah in temeljnih svoboščinah. Pri tem avtor upošteva relevantne odločitve Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. V nadaljevanju avtor iz sodb Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice izlušči in analizira posamezne kriterije, ki jih Sodišče uporablja v primerih kolizije med svobodo izražanja in varstvom ugleda in pravic drugih. Ugotavlja, da je posebej pomemben kriterij prispevka k debati o zadevi javnega pomena ob upoštevanju položaja osebe, ki je komentirana. Posebej pomembno je tudi razlikovanje med vrednostnimi sodbami in izjavami o dejstvih, pri čemer Sodišče v tovrstnih primerih priznava širok pomen pojmu vrednostnih sodb, ki pa morajo vendarle temeljiti na vsaj minimalni dejanski podlagi. Sledi analiza konkretnih odločitev Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice v obravnavanih primerih z njihovo medsebojno primerjavo in komentarjem. Sodišče sledi vzpostavljenim splošnim načelom, poudarek pa daje zlasti vprašanju, ali je bila izjava podana v okviru politične razprave in ali je pomenila prispevek k razpravi o zadevi javnega pomena. Pri odločanju se Sodišče izčrpno ukvarja s kontekstom izjave v konkretnem primeru in pri tem med drugim upošteva, ali je bila izjava podana kot odgovor, kakšno konotacijo ima posamezen uporabljen izraz, na kakšen način je bila izjava podana itd. V zadnjem delu avtor analizira slovensko sodno prakso s poudarkom na odločitvi slovenskega prvostopenjskega sodišča v obravnavani situaciji. Po mnenju avtorja se s sprejeto odločitvijo ne tvega kršitev 10. člena Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: svoboda izražanja, politični govor, kolizija med svobodo izražanja in varstvom ugleda in pravic drugih, Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice, spori med politiki in novinarji
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2017
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-98569
• COBISS.SI-ID: 15904337
• Publication date in RUL: 07.12.2017

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: The Conventional Protection Regarding the Commenting of Journalistic Works from the Politicians' Point of View

Abstract

The author in this thesis deals with issues of limits of permissible criticism that is from the politician’s point of view directed opposed a journalist or a media company. For this very purpose he presents, in the introduction, the perimeter of protecting the freedom of speech which originates from the Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author, at this point, abides relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Further on the author extracts and analyses from the verdict, an individual criteria of the European Court of Human Rights used in cases of concurrence between the freedom of speech, protection of reputation and the rights of others. He establishes that the criterion of contribution to a debate on a matter of public concern considering the position of the commenting person has a special value. It is also especially important to differentiate between value judgements and statements of facts wherein the Court in those particular cases acknowledges broad meaning of value judgements which yet have to be based on at least minimum actual standings. In the continuation the analysis of concrete decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the proceeding cases is presented with its reciprocal comparison and commentary. The Court follows the maintained general principles and emphasizes the question whether the statement was given within a political debate and if it had a meaning of contribution to a disquisition of a matter of a public concern. At executing the Court thoroughly deals with a context of a statement in a concrete case and among others also considers whether the statement was given as an answer, it deals with the used terms and the manner that the statement was delivered, etc. In the conclusion the author analyses Slovene jurisdictional practice with the emphasis to the Slovene Court of First Instance in the examined situation. In the author’s opinion the accepted decision of the violation of the Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not at risk.

• Keywords: the freedom of speech, political speech, concurrence between the freedom of speech, protection of reputation and the rights of others, the European Court of Human Rights, disputes between politicians and journalists