Romania, National Audiovisual Council (Consiliul Naţional al Audiovizualului) Decission no. 115 from 27 May 2021

Country

Romania

Title

Romania, National Audiovisual Council (Consiliul Naţional al Audiovizualului) Decission no. 115 from 27 May 2021

View full Case

Year

2021

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, May 27, 2021

Incident(s) concerned/related

Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

eu citizens & nationals with migrant background

Court/Body type

High regulatory authority

Court/Body

National Audiovisual Council (Consiliul Naţional al Audiovizualului)

Key facts of the case

The complaint refers to a TV show in which a woman alleged she was aggressed by a deputy-mayor. The TV-show discussion did not include his point of view, and according to the plaintiff, the discussion made reference to the fact that the deputy-mayor is Arab and presented a biased and discriminatory portrait of him.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Audiovisual Council found that the comments about the deputy-mayor not focusing on his professional activity but on his ethnicity/nationality being identified as the "Arab Deputy Mayor" and told to go back to his country, can generate hatred, hence the members of the Council have found a violation of art. 47 para. (4) of 4 The Audiovisual Code, which prohibit audiovisual programs to use generalizing statements in reference to a person based on their belonging to a defined group/community of ethnicity or nationality.

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 case looked at limitations of free speech in the media, specifying that the freedom of speech must be exercised in good faith, information shared needs to be accurate and impartial and respect the right of citizens to receive accurate information.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Audio-visual Council found that broadcasters are under an obligation to provide impartial information and refrain from making generalising statements that can incite racial hatred. It fined the broadcaster with RON 10 000 (approx. 2 000 Euro) and it obliged the broadcaster to air at least 3 times between 18.00 - 22.00 o clock, a text specifying that it was fined for defamatory messages against a public official.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

“Libertatea de exprimare este un drept fundamental al omului, însă radiodifuzorii ntrebuie să ţină cont şi de faptul că acest drept nu este unul absolut. Curtea Europeană a stabilit, de asemenea, că articolul 10 din Convenţie nu protejează numai substanţa ideilor exprimate, dar şi modul în care acestea sunt exprimate, precum şi regula potrivit căreia dacă libertatea de opinie nu poate fi limitată, exprimarea opiniei poate forma obiectul unei limitări, fie şi pentru respectarea drepturilor aparţinând altor subiecte de drept. Pe de altă parte, membrii Consiliului au constatat că radiodifuzorul nu a informat în mod corect telespectatorii cu privire la evenimentele prezentate în emisiune, fiind încălcate prevederi ale art. 64 din Codul audiovizualului. “ "Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, but broadcasters must also take into account the fact that this right is not an absolute one. The European Court established that Article 10 of the Convention protects not only the substance of the ideas expressed, but also the manner in which they are expressed, as well as the rule that if the freedom of opinion cannot be limited, the expression of the opinion can be subject to limitations in order to protect the rights of others. On the other hand, the members of the Council found that the broadcaster did not correctly inform the viewers about the events presented in the show, being in violation of the provisions of art. 64 of the Audio-visual Code. "

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.