Article 6 of the European Convention does not protect the State bodies and public institutions. Moreover, the European Convention provides that in exercising their duties, all levels of State bodies are obliged to respect the rights and obligations provided for in it. In the said context, the public radio and television broadcasters of the Entities do not enjoy the protection under Article 10 of the European Convention. Moreover, the instant case does not contain the elements for which the European Convention has to be interpreted in a different manner. However, the previous paragraph does not relate to the right of the employees at the public radio and television broadcasters to freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the European Convention. In this respect, the Constitutional Court refers to the view taken by the European Court of Human Rights, such as e.g. in the Judgment of 26 September 1995, in the case of Vogt and Others v. Germany, according to which the principles under Article 10 of the European Convention are applicable also to the civil servants, since although it is justified for a State to impose on civil servants, on account of their status, a duty of discretion, civil servants are individuals and, as such, are subject to the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 42/03 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 36/05; proceedings of review of compatibility of Articles 6, 7, 9, 43, 71 and 72 of the Law on the Basis of the Public Broadcasting System of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Law on the Public Broadcasting Service of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Constitution of BiH
There is a violation of the right to freedom of expression in the event when ordinary courts exceed the margin of appreciation when they conclude that the disputable text constitutes the presentation of the facts, although it fully expresses value judgments of the appellant, which amounts to the violation of the principle of proportionality relating to the balance between the restriction of the freedom of media and the reputation of a public personality.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 787/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 50, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06; the restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression of the appellants; the violation of Article 10 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(h) of the Constitution of BiH established
There is no violation of the right to the freedom of expression under Article II(3)(h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 10 of the European Convention when the court has rendered a judgment in civil proceedings, ordering the appellant to pay compensation for damage caused to the plaintiff’s s reputation by alleging and communicating untrue facts since the “interference” was in accordance with the law, with the aim to “protect the rights of others” and it was “a necessary measure in a democratic society”.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 913/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 40 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1005/04 of 2 December 2005, paragraph 51, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 45/06;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1145/04 of 2 December 2005, paragraph 52, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 45/06;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 96/05 of 2 February 2006, paragraph 49, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37/06
There is no violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article II(3)(h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 10 of the European Convention in the case where the Cantonal Court and the Supreme Court provided substantiated and clear reasons for their decisions. In these decisions, the courts ordered the appellant to compensate the plaintiff for pecuniary damage - loss of profit as the plaintiff’s right to commercial reputation was violated. The courts indisputably proved that the plaintiff suffered pecuniary damage – loss of profit after the appellant had published the disputed article in his daily newspaper providing false information related to the quality of wheat imported by the plaintiff and for which plaintiff’s business partners had cancelled the sales contracts concluded with him.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2753/16 of 17 July 2018, paragraph 40, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 55/18; violation of the right to commercial reputation, compensation for damage suffered; there is no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention and Article II/3 (h) of the Constitution of BiH
