43335/18

Wichtiger Hinweis:

Diese Website wird in älteren Versionen von Netscape ohne graphische Elemente dargestellt. Die Funktionalität der Website ist aber trotzdem gewährleistet. Wenn Sie diese Website regelmässig benutzen, empfehlen wir Ihnen, auf Ihrem Computer einen aktuellen Browser zu installieren.

Urteilskopf

43335/18

Société Suisse de Radiodiffusion et Télévision (Ssr) and others c. Switzerland

Décision no. 43335/18, 09 octobre 2025

Regeste

Diese Zusammenfassung existiert nur auf Französisch.

Inhaltsangabe des BJ

(4. Quartalsbericht 2025)

Freiheit der Meinungsäusserung (Art. 10 EMRK); Entscheide der Unabhängigen Beschwerdeinstanz für Radio und Fernsehen (UBI) und des Bundesgerichts, wonach die Beschwerdeführerin in der fraglichen Sendung einen wichtigen Themenaspekt ausgelassen und die Öffentlichkeit dadurch gehindert hatte, sich eine unabhängige und fundierte Meinung zu bilden.

Die Beschwerde betrifft die Ausstrahlung einer Reportage durch die Beschwerdeführerinde im Jahr 2015 in der Sendung «Temps Présent». Die fragliche Reportage befasste sich mit einer Untersuchung über die Schweizer Weinbranche und die Unregelmässigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit dem neuen Schweizer Weinkontrollsystem, besonders im Fall eines Walliser Winzers. Im Beitrag wurde insbesondere auf dessen Steuerbetrug hingewiesen. Aber auch die religiöse Überzeugung des Winzers und dessen Ansichten zu den Themen Abtreibung und Homosexualität wurden erwähnt. Nach einem gescheiterten Schlichtungsverfahren für Beschwerden gegen den Inhalt von ausgestrahlten Sendungen reichten der Winzer und sein Unternehmen bei der Unabhängigen Beschwerdeinstanz für Radio und Fernsehen (UBI) eine Beschwerde gegen die Reportage ein. Neben einer unausgewogenen Berichterstattung wurde geltend gemacht, dass den Zuschauern von Anfang das Bild eines unzuverlässigen Winzers, der sich zweifelhafter Methoden bediente, vermittelt worden sei. Ausserdem habe die Beschwerdeführerin ihnen bewusst wichtige Informationen vorenthalten, die zu einer objektiven und neutralen Darstellung beigetragen hätten. Die UBI hat die Beschwerde gutgeheissen. Das Bundegsericht wies in der Folge die Beschwerde der Beschwerdeführerin ab. Vor dem Gerichtshof machte diese in eigenem Namen und im Namen von drei Journalisten, die an der Produktion der Informationssendung «Temps présent» beteiligt waren, eine Verletzung von Artikel 10 EMRK geltend, mit der Begründung, dass die Feststellung der innerstaatlichen Behörden, wonach sie ihre Pflicht zur genauen Darstellung der Tatsachen verletzt hätten, eine abschreckende Wirkung hätte und damit eine Verletzung ihrer Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit nach Artikel 10 EMRK darstelle.

Der Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass die Beschwerdeführer sich auf die Aussage beschränkten, dass der fragliche Entscheid eine abschreckende Wirkung hätte. Aus den Akten ging jedoch nicht hervor, ob diese Behauptung auf konkreten Tatsachen begründete. Der Gerichtshof hielt insbesondere fest, dass (a) die Ausstrahlung der strittigen Sendung nicht verboten wurde; (b) die Aufsichtsbehörde ausdrücklich darauf hingewiesen hatte, dass eine Erwähnung der angefochtenen Entscheidungen ausgereicht hätte; (c) die Beschwerdeführerin nicht dazu verpflichtet wurde, die strittige Sendung aus ihrem Datenarchiv zu entfernen; sowie (d) die Beschwerdeführerin lediglich die Pflicht hatte, die Aufsichtsbehörde über die Massnahmen zu informieren, die ergriffen wurden, um eine Wiederholung solcher Vorfälle in Zukunft zu vermeiden. Vor diesem Hintergrund befand der Gerichtshof, dass im vorliegenden Fall keine abschreckende Wirkung vorlag. Unzulässig (einstimmig).

Sachverhalt

Sachverhalt

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 43335/18

SOCIÉTÉ SUISSE DE RADIODIFFUSION ET TÉLÉVISION (SSR)

and Others

against Switzerland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:

Mykola Gnatovskyy

, President

,

Andreas Zünd,

Vahe Grigoryan

, judges

,

and Martina Keller,

Deputy

Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 43335/18) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 4 September 2018 by three Swiss nationals and one Swiss company ("the applicants"), whose relevant details are listed in the appended table, and who were represented by Mr J. Soussi, a lawyer practising in Geneva;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Swiss Government ("the Government"), represented by their Agent, Mr A. Chablais, of the Federal Office of Justice, and by their Deputy Agent, Mr A. Scheidegger, of that same office;

the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants;

the comments submitted by Mr D.G. represented by Mr Y. Sakkas and Ms S. Haenni of Sakkas Avocats, who was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. On 22 January 2015, the applicant company, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (

Société suisse de radiodiffusion et television

- SSR), broadcast a report entitled "Affaire [G.], du vin en eaux troubles" ("[G.] affair: wine in troubled waters") in its weekly magazine programme "Temps Présent". The investigation focused on irregularities in the Swiss wine market and the case of Mr D.G., a winemaker from the Canton of Valais, who had been accused of tax offences, fraud, unfair competition practices, forgery, and misuse of "AOC Valais" labels. The report also discussed his religious beliefs and his views on abortion and homosexuality. A spokesperson for Mr D.G. had given an interview during the preparation of the report, but had later requested that the interview be withdrawn owing to editorial disagreements.

2. After the failure of the compulsory mediation proceedings, Mr D.G. and his company lodged a complaint with the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television ("the Complaints Authority"), submitting that the report had portrayed him as a disreputable person involved in dubious practices, had failed to put forward his perspective and had omitted to include critical background details, including a journalist's personal dispute with him.

3. On 25 August 2016 the Complaints Authority upheld the complaint, finding that the report was biased and overly judgmental, and that it focused on Mr D.G.'s negative aspects without adequately presenting his perspective. It concluded that the requisite journalistic diligence was lacking.

4. The applicant company appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on 15 February 2018. The court found that the report had failed to provide a balanced view, had disproportionately targeted Mr D.G. and had disregarded broader regulatory issues. It noted the report's focus on Mr D.G.'s personal life, religious beliefs and moral judgments, which were unrelated to its investigative purpose. The court held that the report had breached objective journalism rules by excluding the relevant context, such as cantonal blending practices and Mr D.G.'s compliance with cellar regulations, while ignoring positive aspects of his business such as the awards received for his wines. The court also held that the report had unnecessarily discredited Mr D.G., thus breaching ethical standards. It highlighted the need for balanced reporting and the adequate representation of all perspectives.

5. On 4 June 2018 the applicant company informed the Complaints Authority about the measures that had been taken to redress the imbalance and to comply with the findings, which included: (a) disseminating the decisions to editorial teams and discussing them in meetings; (b) disseminating the decisions in ethics training sessions; and (c) removing the report from the applicant company's website and placing it under legal embargo.

6. On 28 June and 10 July 2018 the Complaints Authority replied to the applicant company, stating that the proposed measures were sufficient. It expressly drew attention to the fact that it did not require the disputed report to be deleted; if the video of the report were to remain in the electronic archive, or on the programme's web page, a reference to the decision of the Complaints Authority or the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court would be sufficient.

Erwägungen

Erwägungen

THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT

7.

The applicants complained that the domestic authorities' finding that they had breached their obligation to present events accurately would have a chilling effect, thus constituting a violation of their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

8.

The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning the complaint lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants and stated that the application was manifestly ill-founded in so far as there had been no interference with the applicants' rights under Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers it unnecessary to address the Government's non-exhaustion objection because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

9.

This case concerns the decisions of the Complaints Authority and the Federal Supreme Court, which found that the applicant company had failed to include an important aspect of the subject matter in the broadcast in question, thereby preventing the public from forming a free and informed opinion.

10.

While the concept of "interference" is broad - encompassing various forms of restrictions, penalties and formalities imposed by State authorities - it is closely linked to the existence of a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression. The Court has consistently held that purely hypothetical risks are insufficient to establish such an interference (for examples of concrete interferences, see

Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and Others v. Switzerland

(dec.), no. 68995/13, § 71, 12 November 2019, and the references cited therein).

11.

In the present case, the applicants merely alleged that the decisions in question would have a "chilling effect". However, there is no evidence in the case file that such claims were subsequently borne out by concrete developments. The Court notes, in particular, that (a) there was no prohibition on broadcasting the disputed programme; (b) the Complaints Authority explicitly stated that referencing the impugned decisions would suffice; (c) the applicant company was not required to remove the disputed programme from its electronic archive; and (d) the only obligation imposed on the applicant company was to inform the Complaints Authority of the measures taken to prevent similar breaches in the future.

12.

In the light of these considerations, the Court finds no evidence of a chilling effect in the present case. Consequently, the contested decisions cannot be regarded as amounting to an "interference" with the applicants' right to freedom of expression.

13.

The Court concludes that, on the basis of all the material before it, and in so far as the complaint falls within its competence, it fails to meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention and does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights or freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

14.

Accordingly, the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

Entscheid

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares

the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 November 2025.

Martina Keller Mykola Gnatovskyy

Deputy Registrar President

1.

Appendix

List of applicants:

No.

Applicant's name

Year of birth/

registration

Place of residence

1.

Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (

Société suisse de radiodiffusion et télévision

- SSR)

1931.

Bern

2.

Mr Pietro BOSCHETTI

1955.

Neuchâtel

3.

Mr Jean-Philippe CEPPI

1962.

Lausanne

4.

Mr Philippe MACH

1970.

Chambésy

Inhalt

Ganzes EMRK Urteil

Regeste

deutsch

französisch

italienisch

Sachverhalt

Erwägungen

Dispositiv

Neue Suche

ähnliche Leitentscheide suchen

Back