Case Summary and Outcome

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled that the arbitrary reduction of the public radio and television broadcaster’s funding, as prescribed by the challenged provisions of the Media Act and the relevant secondary legislation, violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression by undermining the public broadcaster’s financial and programmatic independence without a substantiated justification. The case arose when the public broadcaster challenged amendments to the Media Act that diverted 3% of its funding to other media programs, arguing this interfered with its ability to operate independently, violating its constitutional protections. Despite objections from the Government, some members of parliament, and the public broadcaster, the amendment was adopted without evaluating its impact on the broadcaster’s operations. The Court ruled that the legislature failed to justify the funding reduction or assess its impact on the broadcaster’s constitutional role, rendering the decision arbitrary. The Court emphasized that safeguarding the broadcaster’s financial independence is essential to protect freedom of expression and ensure the public’s right to information.

Facts

The complainant, Radio-Television Slovenia (RTV Slovenia), is Slovenia’s national public broadcaster, operating as a public institution of special cultural and national significance. It provides radio and television services to meet the cultural, social, and democratic needs of Slovenian society, including minorities and Slovenians abroad. Its operations were funded through multiple sources, including mandatory monthly contributions paid by Slovenian households with access to broadcast services.

On April 27, 2001, the Slovenian parliament amended the Media Act, which prescribed the mandatory subscription fee for Radio-Television Slovenia and redirected 3% of the collected funding to other media organizations. The contested new Article 82 of the Media Act was introduced during the third reading in the legislature, without prior inclusion in the government’s draft.

During parliamentary debates, several objections were voiced, both regarding the manner in which the amendment was proposed and its content. The Secretariat of the National Assembly for Legislation and Legal Affairs warned that the amendment might be unconstitutional and could create legal conflicts with RTV Slovenia. The National Assembly for Culture, Education, Youth, Science, and Sport Committee echoed these concerns, recommending alternative funding solutions for funding special-purpose programs outside the public broadcaster’s domain. The representatives of the Slovenian government acknowledged the constitutionally problematic nature of the proposed amendment. They expressed support for potential legal action by RTV Slovenia if the provisions were to be enacted. Several parliamentarians and RTV Slovenia representatives, who participated in the discussions, also opposed the measure, expressing similar concerns.

Despite objections, Parliament approved the amendment, diverting 3% of RTV Slovenia’s subscription revenue to other radio content and television programs of local, regional, or student significance outside of public broadcasting services offered by RTV Slovenia.

In 2001, RTV Slovenia filed a request for a constitutional review of Article 82 of the amended Media Act.

Later, in 2002, the government adopted the Regulation on Criteria for Financing Program Content of Radio or Television Programs with Local, Regional, or Student Significance (Regulation), which formalized the allocation of the diverted funds by specifying the distribution process and defining the scope and beneficiaries.

In 2003, RTV Slovenia expanded its constitutional challenge to include the Regulation, arguing it further undermined the broadcaster’s financial independence and violated constitutional protections for media freedom.

Decision Overview

Judge Wedam Lukić, President of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, delivered the Judgement for the Constitutional Court of Slovenia. The main issue for the Court was whether the interference with the financial independence of the national public broadcaster constituted a violation of the constitutional principle of freedom of expression, including public information rights, due to Radio Television Slovenia’s special significance as a public institution. The Court assessed the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the Media Act and the Regulation based on which 3% of RTV Slovenia’s mandatory public funding was redirected to support other local, regional, and student media programs.

RTV Slovenia argued this funding diversion violated Article 39 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and specific provisions of the Radio-Television Slovenia Act that safeguard its financial autonomy. The state maintained the redistribution served legitimate public interests without critically impairing RTV Slovenia’s operations.

The Court’s analysis proceeded in four key stages. It first confirmed RTV Slovenia’s standing to bring the challenge, recognizing its unique constitutional role in enabling citizens’ right to information. The Court emphasized that as the primary institution charged with fulfilling this fundamental right, RTV Slovenia had a direct legal interest in protecting its operational independence. [para. 6]

Second, the Court, on the broader role of RTV Slovenia, quoted its earlier Decision No. U-I-172/94, reaffirming that “a free press, independent of authority, helps establish and shape an impartial and informed public, enables it to monitor all branches of authority, and ensures the effective functioning of political opposition.” [para. 7] The Court ruled that consequently, the legislature is obligated to guarantee the editorial, structural, and economic autonomy of public broadcasters through proper legal frameworks. This requirement is especially crucial for state-established media entities like RTV Slovenia, whose fundamental mission is to safeguard and facilitate citizens’ constitutional right to access and receive public information. [para. 8]

The Court then established a clear link between financial autonomy and editorial independence. Drawing on its jurisprudence, including Decision No. U-I-174/94, it ruled that “financing from the state budget is not equivalent to financing through subscription, as the risk of national RTV programs becoming dependent on political and economic power centers would be greater with budgetary financing.” [para. 12]

Finally, the Court found the legislative process fundamentally flawed. The funding diversion had been introduced during the bill’s third reading without proper assessment of its consequences. The Court held that while the legislature has discretion to modify funding structures, such changes require substantive justification to ensure they don’t compromise media independence. As the decision noted, “if the legislature, in cooperation with RTVS, had carefully assessed the possible consequences of reducing the contribution and concluded that the reduction would not threaten the constitutionally protected independence of RTVS or that the reduction would not affect the fulfillment of its tasks, its decision to reduce the contribution would have been substantively justified.” The absence of such analysis rendered the amendment arbitrary and unconstitutional. [paras. 16-17]

Accordingly, the Court found that amendments to Slovenia’s Media Act unlawfully undermined the financial independence of the national public broadcaster, Radio-Television Slovenia (RTV Slovenia), in violation of constitutional protections for freedom of expression.