Background
Golf Bulgaria, registered in Bulgaria as a provider of non-linear media services, published an online article containing a Facebook video filmed in a shopping centre. The video showed a boy with special educational needs being made to imitate a dog while a group gave him commands, kept him on a lead, and praised him as a “good dog.”
Bulgaria’s Electronic Media Council found that publishing the video breached national rules prohibiting broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality and imposed a BGN 3,000 fine. After the fine was upheld at first instance, Golf Bulgaria appealed, arguing among other things that the material was not an audiovisual media service and that the morality standard unlawfully restricted freedom of expression.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that Article 6(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, read with Article 11 of the Charter, does not prevent a Member State from penalising a media service provider for disseminating a video that undermines human dignity under a national prohibition on broadcasts contrary to accepted standards of morality.
That result depends on legal certainty. The national rule, together with relevant national judicial interpretation where necessary, must be sufficiently clear and precise that media service providers can determine that the prohibition covers content degrading human dignity. It is for the Bulgarian court to verify that condition and also to determine whether Golf Bulgaria had the editorial responsibility needed for its online video service to fall within the Directive.
Key Takeaways
- Article 6(1) requires Member States to protect human dignity in audiovisual media services.
- A general national morality standard may implement that obligation if its application to dignity-degrading content is foreseeable.
- Protecting human dignity is a legitimate and proportionate basis for limiting media freedom of expression, provided the rule is sufficiently clear.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that Member States may use national legal concepts such as accepted standards of morality to sanction audiovisual content that humiliates or degrades people, rather than needing a separate statutory rule for every form of dignity violation.
But the ruling preserves an important safeguard for media providers: a penalty must rest on a clear, foreseeable legal basis. National courts must assess both the provider’s editorial responsibility and whether the national rule gave adequate notice that the publication was prohibited.