Slovenia / Supreme Court / Judgment I Ips 32326/2021 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:I.IPS.32326.2021
Country
Slovenia
Title
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
Main reasoning/argumentation
The Supreme Court found that the statements advanced in the article constituted clear and public advocacy of racial superiority and approval of genocide, thus meeting the legal definition of the criminal offence under Article 297 of the Criminal Code. It held that such expression is excluded from constitutional protection under Article 39 (freedom of expression) due to the prohibition of incitement to discrimination and intolerance laid down in Article 63 of the Constitution. It dismissed arguments that the statements were satirical or artistic, stressing that stylistic presentation does not legitimise speech advocating hatred.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
The Supreme Court observed whether the discourse published in the magazine, which expressed hatred against immigrant groups and invoked racial supremacy and supremacy of Christianity over other religions, enjoyed protection under provisions guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression under Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and Article 10 of the ECHR, or it was excluded from such protection and punishable under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code implementing Article 63 of the Constitution which prohibits incitement to discrimination and intolerance.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The Supreme Court of Slovenia upheld the conviction of the defendant for public incitement to hatred, violence, or intolerance under Article 297 of the Criminal Code. As a result, the defendant remained subject to their original sentence of six months of imprisonment, with a two-year probation period. (The lower courts sentenced the other defendant to five months of imprisonment, with the same probation period.) This decision is significant for several reasons. It was issued in a hate speech case—an area of law where cases rarely reach the courts, let alone the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court classified this ruling as one of its more important decisions, underscoring the significance of its interpretation of the case for future instances involving speech that incites hatred against immigrant groups through narratives of racial supremacy and/or supremacy of Christianity over other religion. The ruling also clarified that spreading hatred under the guise of satire, artistic expression, or freedom of speech—particularly in the media—should not be tolerated.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"16. Vrhovno sodišče pritrjuje presoji nižjih sodišč, da sporna izjava predstavlja jasno in javno širjenje ideje o večvrednosti ene (bele) rase nad drugo in odobravanje genocida, torej so izpolnjeni zakonski znaki kaznivega dejanja iz drugega odstavka 297. člena KZ-1. Temu zaključku vodi že sama vsebina besedila, citirana v opisu kaznivega dejanja, pri čemer je javno širjenje ideje o večvrednosti bele rase moč zaznati v celotnem besedilu, v omembi "možnosti ustvarjanja virusa, zaradi katerega zbolevajo le določeni ljudje, rase in skupine ljudi določenih lastnosti […] in ciljne eliminacije določene vrste škodljivih ljudi", pa je jasno mogoče prepoznati tudi odobravanje genocida. Poleg tega je Vrhovno sodišče pri presoji še upoštevalo, da v predmetni zadevi ni šlo za politični govor in tudi ne za konstruktiven prispevek k javni razpravi o neki temi v javnem interesu, pač pa za golo uporabo žalitev z namenom javnega širjenja ideje o večvrednosti ene rase nad drugo ter odobravanja genocida, dejanje pa je bilo storjeno zoper ranljivo skupino (migrante oziroma priseljence ali pripadnike drugih ras). Ker celotna sporna izjava predstavlja spodbujanje k rasni neenakopravnosti in razpihovanje rasne nestrpnosti, je torej v izrecnem nasprotju tudi s 63. členom Ustave. Navedeno pomeni, da je sporna izjava, že po sami vsebini, prepovedana na podlagi 63. člena Ustave in drugega odstavka 297. člena KZ-1 ter zato ne uživa varstva iz 39. člena Ustave." "16. The Supreme Court agrees with the assessment of the lower courts that the disputed statement constitutes a clear and public dissemination of the idea of the superiority of one (white) race over another and the approval of genocide, and therefore forms part of the constituent elements of the criminal offence from the second paragraph of Article 297 of the Criminal Code (KZ-1). The very content of the text itself leads to this conclusion, as cited in the description of the criminal offence, whereby the public dissemination of the idea of the superiority of the white race is evident throughout the text. Furthermore, in the reference to 'the possibility of creating a virus, that only makes certain people, races and groups of people with certain characteristics sick [...] and the targeted elimination of a certain type of harmful people', approval of genocide can be clearly recognised. In addition, the Supreme Court also took into account in its assessment that the case in question did not concern political speech or a constructive contribution to public discourse on a matter of public interest, but rather the mere use of insults aimed at publicly spreading the idea of the superiority of one race over another and approving genocide, and that the act was committed against a vulnerable group (migrants, namely immigrants or members of other races). Since the entire disputed statement constitutes an incitement to racial inequality and the fomenting of racial intolerance, it is in direct contradiction with Article 63 of the Constitution. This means that the disputed statement, by its very content, is prohibited under Article 63 of the Constitution and the second paragraph of Article 297 of the Criminal Code (KZ-1) and, as such, does not enjoy protection under Article 39 of the Constitution."