Legitimate aim

Besides the criterion of lawfulness, it is necessary to identify one or more legitimate aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the ECHR in order for an interference with the freedom of expression to be justified, i.e., whether the restrictions are in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

As to the case-law of the BiH Constitutional Court in respect of the freedom of expression, the relevant cases usually imply the protection of third persons from defamation and insult. Public persons have to accept a much wider range of restrictions on their private lives than persons in whom there is a narrow range of public interest or there is no public interest at all. Namely, as to the first group of persons, there is a justified interest of the public to be informed about them. However, freedom of expression does not encompass the protection against disclosing information or opinions as to the intimate or private spheres of the lives of public persons, but it regards information related to their businesses or duties or the most prominent elements of their personality, which justify the existence of public interest.¹⁶⁷⁶ Criticisms of public persons fall within the scope of freedom of expression. However, it does not encompass the disclosure of a statement of facts, which is manifestly untrue.¹⁶⁷⁷

In the case of “ORDO” RTV Sveti Georgije, after the broadcast of a “live” programme concerned protests against the groundbreaking ceremony for the laying of the cornerstone to reconstruct the former Ferhadija mosque in Banja Luka, the Human Rights Chamber held that the conditions were met to justify the interference with freedom of expression by way of prohibiting the broadcast and suspending the broadcasting licence as it had been legitimately aimed at protecting public safety.¹⁶⁷⁸

In principle, the necessity for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary does not prevent the parties in proceedings from using irony or expressing criticism directed at the court or a judge.¹⁶⁷⁹ However, the right to freedom of expression shall be restricted in cases where expressions contain what would seem to be the elements of an offence (for example, an obstruction to the performance of official duties). In such a case, the imposition of sanctions against a perpetrator of such an offence constitutes a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression.¹⁶⁸⁰