Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter

Issue 48-49     Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law     September 15, 1998 

BULGARIA HUNGARY SLOVAKIA
BULGARIA

I.  Bill guarantees countrywide national broadcasts.

    On 3rd September, the Bulgarian parliament passed further clauses of the Electronic Media Act, the Bulgarian news agency BTA reported.  According to one of the provisions, the state will implement a licensing policy in the area of telecommunications guaranteeing the countrywide broadcasting of the programmes of national radio and national television.

BTA news agency, Sofia, September 3, 1998

II.  Premier approves restrictions on TV advertising.

    The proposal of the National Council on Radio and Television (popularly known as the Media Council) to deprive the Bulgarian National Television (BNT) of the right to prime-time advertising until the licensing of a TV operator with nationwide coverage will help create a genuine competitive environment, Ivan Kostov, prime minister and leader of the ruling Union of Democratic Forces (SDS), said [on 29th July—as received], commenting the decision of the parliamentary committee on radio and television that this provision should be included in the bill on radio and television at its second reading.  “Parliament will decide how to formulate the text,” Kostov said.
    Media Council chairman Stoyan Raychevski said that the resulting redistribution of funds would help set up a private nationwide television channel.
    “Internal ‘privatization’ of the BNT must be stopped.  We saw how some persons at the BNT became very rich, ‘privatizing’ prime-time hours,” Kostov said.  What he had in mind is that a large part of the money coming from commercials in certain programmes broadcast during prime time actually go into private pockets and not to the BNT.
    “It is clear that the national television will have one frequency and that the other will be sold,” Kostov said.  According to him, if the second frequency is sold well, there will be investments in the first one too.
    According to Kostov, there must be a reform at the BNT and this is the only way to carry it out.
    “It will be absolutely unfair to produce one monopolist of the advertisement market and to allow him to control such a large share of it as to make the appearance of a private television impossible,” Kostov said.
    “It is impossible to create a monopolist if frequencies are made available to three or four broadcasters.  There is a monopolist at the present and all passions arise from this fact,” Kostov said.
    “The SDS has no money to buy a frequency plus we don’t have these ambitions either,” the Bulgarian prime minister said, answering a journalist’s question.

BTA news agency, Sofia, July 28, 1998

III.  Telecommunications Act passed.

    Within one month after the entry of the Telecommunications Act into force, the Council of Ministers must set up a State Telecommunications Commission, parliament resolved at an extraordinary sitting  [on 27th July], passing conclusively the Telecommunications Act.
    The National Communications System Fund must be brought into conformity with the provisions of the law by 1st January.  Until 31st December, 1998 the State Telecommunications Commission will be financed from the National Communications System Fund (NCSF) with the Committee of Posts and Telecommunications.  Proceeds from the commission’s operation until the end of, 1998 will be credited to the NCSF.
    The State Telecommunications Commission will credit 50 per cent of the proceeds from frequency use fees to executive budget revenue.  Annually, the commission will transfer to the Radio and Television Fund 80 per cent of the proceeds from initial broadcasting licensing fees and 50 per cent of the annual broadcasting licensing fees.
    The licensing fees, as well as the fees for radio frequency spectrum provided for in the telecommunications business licences, will be credited to the budget of the Commission.  Telecommunications activities will be controlled by the Committee of Telecommunications.  Penalties for violation of broadcasting licences will be imposed by the Commission after a decision by the National Council for Radio and Television.
    The Bulgarian Telecommunications Company (BTC) will continue to use the radio frequency spectrum and to carry on the business envisaged in the licence granted to it by the Committee of Posts and Telecommunications prior to the entry into force of the Telecommunications Act, the MPs resolved.  Within six months after the entry of the law into force, the State Telecommunications Commission will issue a licence to the BTC which will mandatorily include the business covered by its previous licence.  By the licence, in pursuance of a Council of Ministers decision, BTC will be allocated the radio frequency spectrum needed for its business.  BTC will get its licence without auction or competitive bidding.
    Violations of the provisions of the law will be punishable by fines ranging from 200,000 to 50 million leva (equivalent to 200 to 50,000 Deutsche marks).
    Twenty per cent of the proceeds from fines and pecuniary penalties will be credited to the budget of the State Telecommunications Commission.

BTA news agency, Sofia, July 27, 1998

IV.  Provisions for radio/TV licensing.

    At two sittings—a regular and an extraordinary one—parliament passed [on 23rd July] texts of the telecommunications bill regulating the issuing and revoking of telecommunications licences.  Parliament will continue its debates on the bill at an extraordinary session [on 21st July].
    Telecommunications activities will be carried out on the basis of individual licences, general licences and without restraint.  The chairman of the posts and telecommunications committee will determine the types of telecommunications activities subject to licensing.
    Radio and television activities will be carried out on the basis of individual licences.
    The bill provides for the setting up of a State Telecommunications Committee (STC) as a state body with the Council of Ministers.  The STC will be the principal manager of budget credits.  It will be a collective body comprising five members, including a chairman and deputy chairman.  The members of the STC will be appointed by decision of the Council of Ministers for a term of seven years.  They will not be able to hold their posts for more than two consecutive terms.
    The STC will issue, extend, revoke, suspend and withdraw licences for radio and television activities following a decision of the National Radio and Television Council.
    The cabinet will have to adopt decisions on proposals for issuing licences for the building telecommunications networks and telecommunications services through the radio frequency spectrum within a month after they are made by the STC.
    By motivated decisions the STC may change licences for the following reasons:  national security and public interest considerations, changes in internal legislation and decisions of international organizations accepted by Bulgaria.
    The bill provides for individual licences to be granted to sole traders and juristic persons.  Individual licences for independent networks for individual needs using the radio frequency spectrum may also be issued to natural persons.  In case of limited resources, individual licences are issued after the holding of a tender, providing that a law does not stipulate otherwise.
    Individual licences for telecommunications services will be issued for a period of 20 years, which may be extended but cannot exceed 35 years.
    The bill provides for persons to carry out telecommunications activities under a general licence to be registered at the STC.
    Before issuing a general licence, the STC will publish the project for discussions and review stands and objections.
    Public telecommunications operators will be obliged to provide their clients equal access to public telecommunications networks and use of telecommunications services under publicly known terms.

BTA news agency, Sofia, July 23, 1998

HUNGARY

I.  Media supervisory body presents 1997 report.

    The National Radio and Television Body [ORTT] submitted its report on 1997, the first full year of the legally-regulated media reorganization, to parliament recently.  In its report, the ORTT concludes that the hegemony of the public service media came to an end in this period, and the media market has become more balanced with the appearance of commercial television broadcasts.  At the same time, a lot of unsolved questions remain, and this could cause serious problems from the viewpoint of financing the double system:  the commercial companies in question might not be able to implement their economic plans and the public service television stations might become economically unfeasible.  This double system should be avoided by all means, for the assertion of the cultural competitiveness needed for EU membership and of the communication human rights, the ORTT report points out.
    According to the report, the media law in itself cannot keep order in the advertisement market without the regulations and institutions that guarantee all this.
    ORTT data show that, in addition to the MTV [Hungarian Television], several commercial television stations also extended the allowed advertisement time and so they obtained surplus income illegally.  An upset balance endangers the fulfilment of the private stations’ plans, and could lead to the economic collapse of the already “technically underdeveloped” public service television stations.  The ORTT points out that it firmly intends fully to assert the contracts signed with the commercial stations, including supervision, auditing and, if necessary, the possibility of sanctions.
    The news programmes broadcast by more than half a dozen television channels daily are increasing the people’s ability to form an opinion, the ORTT points out.  It adds, however, that “within the constantly developing commercial programming, there are also economic contacts that could limit the freedom of information and opinion in the interest of certain economic or cultural groups, mainly by means of pressure exercised by the stations’ owners.”  Two and a half years after the media law came into force, the ORTT still thinks that “we should establish the new broadcasts’ political independence.”  The ORTT report concludes that the major news programmes of public service media mainly show politicians, and one can see the additional airtime given to politicians in power and their connection to success and the opposition’s connection to failure.  The ORTT points out that different views should also be presented in the news presenting the government activity.
    The ORTT report also points out that a further nine regional and 42 local television and 200 radio frequencies could still be distributed in Hungary.

‘Nepszabadsag,’ Budapest, September 4, 1998

SLOVAKIA
TV MARKIZA

I.  Fearful TV Markiza head flees Slovakia—paper.

    “The continued pressure on TV Markiza television is a political retaliation for the station’s reporting over the past two years,” the Czech daily ‘Pravo’ [on 8th September] quotes TV Markiza director-general Pavol Rusko as saying.
    On [7th September] Rusko conceded before Markiza’s employees that he was leaving Slovakia out of fear for his life, the ‘Pravo’ Slovak correspondent Ivan Vilcek writes.
    Unlike the public Slovak television, the private channel Markiza was considered a stronghold of the Slovak opposition until its seat was controversially occupied in August by a new owner, the Gamatex company, which some say is close to Premier Vladimir Meciar’s Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (HZDS).  Rusko said the occupation had been prepared by the counterintelligence service SIS and the Interior Ministry.  SIS head Ivan Lexa and Interior Minister Gustav Krajci are known as loyal allies of Meciar.
    Rusko said Markiza’s problems stemmed from its success never to kowtow to anyone.  “Three months after our broadcasts began [about two years ago], the premier made us a privatization offer.  However, we knew that if we accepted this we would have to serve [Meciar’s government],” Rusko is quoted as saying.  He said Markiza was forced to stop broadcasting the television series “Leaders” on the order of the Council for Television and Radio Broadcasts.
    “They threatened to cancel our broadcasting licence if we did not give in.  The political arrogance of those who are currently in power is unlimited.  They can also influence Markiza’s broadcasts at variance with the law,” Rusko said.  On [6th September] evening, Markiza transmitted videoclips instead of “Leaders,” and information about the ban of the series appeared on the screen.
    Rusko announced that he knew that a warrant for his arrest had been prepared in connection with “a big tax fraud” and his alleged plan to liquidate Markiza’s co-owner Sylvie Volzova and Gamatex co-owner Marian Kocner.  “Under the scenario, Rusko is to be taken into custody with great publicity, and to be subjected to something like the [show] trials of the 1950s,” ‘Pravo’ quotes Rusko as saying.
    By his televised appearance and going abroad, Rusko wants to prevent this step which could serve [the HZDS] before the 25th-26th September elections.  “If the current government remains in power after the elections, I’m not sure whether I would leave the jail at all.  Accidents occur from time to time,” he said.
    Interior Ministry spokesman Peter Ondera denied that an arrest warrant had been issued.  “Mr Rusko is not being prosecuted.  There is nothing like this,” ‘Pravo’ quotes Ondera as saying.

CTK news agency, Prague, September 8, 1998

II.  Government protests bid to “politicize” Markiza row.

    According to the Press and Information Department of the Slovak Government Office (TIO) on [7th September], the statements of General Director of TV Markiza Pavol Rusko saying that Slovak Premier Vladimir Meciar offered him a share in the privatization and that the current situation in Markiza is a result of political revenge are “just another unfounded nonsense.”
    TIO protests against such statements and emphasizes that Meciar and the Slovak government have already dissociated themselves from the current situation in TV Markiza.  TIO considers Rusko’s statements to be an effort to transfer his responsibility for the current situation in TV Markiza to others and politicize the events which are an internal affair of this television.  “TIO protests against these statements whose aim is to injure and discredit the name of Vladimir Meciar in the pre-election period and it will consider further legal steps against Rusko,” reads the statement provided by TIO Director Marian Kardos.

TASR news agency, Bratislava, September 7, 1998

III.  Markiza TV obeys demands of media watchdog.

    On [6th September] evening, private television Markiza did not broadcast the scheduled programme “Leaders” featuring bosses of Slovak political parties.  Markiza thus obeyed the decision of the Slovak Radio and Television Broadcasting Council (RRTV [media watchdog]) that had ordered Markiza to discontinue the programme until 26th September under the threat of revoking Markiza’s licence if it disrespected the order.  During air time originally destined for “Leaders,” Markiza showed video clips and a text on the screen that the announced programme was taken off the air because the RRTV had banned it.

SITA news agency web site, Bratislava, September 7, 1998

IV.  Markiza TV owner alleges “political revenge.”

    According to general director of TV Markiza Pavol Rusko, the dispute over the ownership of Markiza-Slovakia sro [limited liability company] is an act of political revenge.  As he already said on [6th September]on TV Markiza, the Slovak Intelligence Service (SIS) is involved in the case, and he did not exclude some efforts to influence Markiza’s broadcasting in the upcoming days.
    “It is an act of political revenge, because they could not buy us.  We had offers from the premier himself (Vladimir Meciar) to privatize, but we refused it, as well as some other offers, because independence and freedom of Markiza was above all,” Rusko said.  “Now we can confidently say that SIS is involved in the case and that the whole action was coordinated by the Interior Ministry . . . [agency ellipsis] We also know that it should have continued with my arrest,” Rusko said.
    He said the case was supposed to be one of the biggest media bombs—showing Rusko as a criminal and Markiza as a den for money laundering and contacts with the mafia.  This would discredit the opposition, Rusko added.
    With the contribution of former co-owner of Markiza-Slovakia Sylvia Volzova, who helped the other side, we can expect attempts to influence Markiza’s broadcasting, Rusko said.  Rusko expressed his full confidence in the current top management of Markiza led by Stanislav Pavlik.

TASR news agency, Bratislava, September 7, 1998

V.  Threat to cancel Markiza TV’s licence.

    Sylvia Volzova, an authorized representative of Markiza-Slovakia Ltd in Blatne, co-owner of STS [Slovak TV Company] that operates private Markiza TV, wrote a letter to Stanislav Pavlik, statutory deputy of private Markiza TV’s general director Pavol Rusko, urging him to take all necessary steps to halt the broadcast of other parts of the series “Leaders.”
    Volzova expects that the promotional shot will be withdrawn from the screen and an alternative programme will be selected to appear instead of the banned programme.  She warned Pavlik that if he refused to comply with the order of the Slovak Radio and Television Broadcasting Council (RRTV) to discontinue the programme until 26th September, Markiza TV may be deprived of its licence and its 400 employees may lose their jobs.  A decision to continue broadcasting the programme the could have legal consequences for Pavlik, Volzova warned.  “If you decide to broadcast also the second part of the programme ‘Leaders’ in spite of my notification, you will be sued to compensate for the caused damages,” the letter reads.
    Pavlik told SITA that he received the council’s decision to halt the programme “Leaders” until 26th September on [4th September].  He announced that the decision on broadcasting or not the second part of the programme will be made today or tomorrow. . . .
    As RRTV office head Jarmila Grujbarova recently announced, the programme’s broadcast would mean the beginning of a legal procedure to revoke Markiza’s broadcast licence.  The procedure would start at RRTV sitting on [8th September] and could last three or four weeks.

SITA news agency web site, Bratislava, September 4, 1998

VI.  Watchdog starts proceedings against broadcasters.

    The Council of the Slovak Republic for Radio and TV Broadcast [RRTV, Slovak media watchdog] has started proceedings against [private] Radio Twist over its 1200 news bulletin of 27th August.  It also started proceedings against [private] TV Markiza over two of its bulletins and against Radio Free Europe over one of its bulletins.  The RRTV says that the law on radio and TV broadcast and the amendment to the election law have been violated.  We asked our director-general, Andrej Hryc, for a comment:
[Hryc]      The aim of the chapters of the election law on private electronic media is to restrict the spread of information in particular by Radio Twist and TV Markiza.
 I think that this shows that the law will be rigidly used in particular against these two media.  We can expect rather fierce pressure; we shall see where it will lead.  It is a paradox that no action has been taken against the unlawful behaviour of [state] Slovak Television.
[Q]     Naturally, we cannot change the RRTV decision.  We know that it has the power to inflict a fine, stop a bulletin for a month or even take away a licence.  Do you think that Radio Twist might be banned?
[A]     I would not like to predict anything.  The amendment to the election law gave the RRTV these rights.  It is unusual, a law of this kind exists nowhere else in the world.  In my view, this law is undemocratic and anticonstitutional.  The Constitutional Court has been asked to abolish it but it is not in a hurry although we are so close to the elections.  I believe common sense will prevail and I hope that the council will realize that we cannot broadcast only music for 30 days before the elections.  We are a news radio channel and our licence says that we are to specialize in internal political news broadcasts, and that cannot consist only of information on animals and similar.

Radio Twist, Bratislava, September 3, 1998

VII.  TV Markiza accused of airing “misleading information.”

    On [31st August] in its regular political “Sito” discussion, the private TV Markiza broadcast misleading information, RRTV (Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting) Chairman Peter Juras told TASR on [2nd September] in Bratislava.  The information indicated that RRTV was looking into a proposal to stop the “Leaders” programme, which Markiza first aired 30th August, in that it contradicts the Election Act and that the deciding vote in favour of the proposal was that of RRTV member Mojmir Mamojka.
    The same information (without mentioning Mamojka and including the wrong name of the political party which nominated him—Party of the Democratic Left/SDL, instead of the former Spolocna Volba or Common Choice) was broadcast on the same day on Markiza’s “Televizne Noviny,” its evening news programme.  In his standpoint, Juras says that, in fact, members of the council decided on the matter by secret ballot.  Therefore, it must be clear that every member of the council can only be aware of his or her own vote.
    After a detailed analysis of the “Leaders” programme, all eight members of the council unanimously agreed that the programme violated Paragraph 23 Sub-Section 3 of the Election Act.  According to Juras, the only aim of TV Markiza’s information could be the discreditation of a member of the council in the eyes of the public.  All RRTV members vote according to their conscience.  Therefore, Juras considers the broadcasting of such fabricated information to be an effort to put pressure on RRTV members and their free and independent decisions.  The misleading information regarding the political party which appointed Mamojka could have had a political background.  Therefore, and in compliance with the licence condition III/3, Juras demands that TV Markiza set the record straight on its newscast 2nd September, and that it issue an apology to Mamojka.

TASR news agency, Bratislava, September 2, 1998


SLOVAK TV’S CLOSURE OF HUNGARIAN SERVICE

I.  Slovak TV closes Hungarian language service.

    The Hungarian language service of Slovak TV and its editorial department have been closed down with immediate effect.  No specific justification has been given for the decision.  Ildiko Nagy reports from Bratislava:
[Nagy]      The Hungarian language service of Slovak TV, which has been operating since 1983, and its team of two, sometimes three, editors have undergone a wide range of trials.  Their programmes were changed virtually every year.  The initial 30-minute weekly news magazine was first reduced to 10 minutes, then to five minutes.  Twice it was abolished altogether.
    The time of the transmission of the programme, which was resumed after 1989, was then changed every six months, and the management of Slovak TV also presented the programme editors with virtually impossible requirements.  For example, the producers had to take their material from Slovak TV’s [Slovak language] newsreel.  Talks and interviews conducted in Hungarian had to have Slovak subtitles until only a short while ago.
    The Hungarian language service’s programmes were also censored.  An interview with Bela Bugar, chairman of the Hungarian Coalition Party, in June when the party had just been formed could not be transmitted, and the transmission of the interviews with the sacked [ethnic Hungarian] schoolmasters of Bucs [Buc in southern Slovakia] and Batorkeszi [Vojnice in southern Slovakia] on the occasion of their being awarded the Steadfastness Prize was also refused.
    The abolition of the Hungarian language service which was announced [on 17th August] has an obvious political motive.  It is a way in which the Slovak authorities intend to limit the publicity opportunities of the [ethnic] Hungarian politicians and the information reaching the [ethnic] Hungarian electorate in Slovakia a month before the general election, Agnes Bardos, editor of the programme, said in a statement to the correspondent of Hungarian radio [Nagy].

Hungarian Radio, Budapest, August 18, 1998

II.  Hungarian-language programme to be “restructured.”

    Slovak television has wound up its Hungarian editorial section, which has been functioning with short and long interruptions since 1983.  According to official explanations, the Hungarian programme will not be stopped, it will only be transformed.
[Reporter]     The managers explained the dissolution of the three-member editorial section by saying that it had failed to meet the expectation of the TV management.  According to the official explanation, however, the one-hour news programme—therefore the Hungarian-language programme—will not be abolished, it will only be restructured:  reduced from 60 minutes to 10 minutes and the editors might have a place among the staff of a new, all-ethnic programme.
[Unidentified Slovak official]      No, no.  The Hungarian-language programme will be kept, but other minorities living in Slovakia—such as the Croatian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Ukrainian, German and Polish minorities—will also have a place in it.
[Reporter]     However, we have not received any answer to the question of whether the new programme’s broadcasting time will be distributed proportionately between the minorities, or whether the half-a-million-strong Hungarian community will have the same 10 minutes as, for example, the German or Croat minorities which have much fewer members.
    According to the honorary chairman of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition [Miklos Duray], the plan for Slovak broadcasts in other minority languages as well is welcome, but making this change at the expense of the Hungarian-language programme is a hostile step.
[Duray]     In my view this will not influence the elections because the Hungarian community in Slovakia does not gather information on their affairs from Slovak television.  However, this development reflects the current Slovak government’s position towards the Hungarian community.

Hungarian TV1, Budapest, August 18, 1998


OTHER MEDIA NEWS

I.  Minister’s call for private broadcaster ban rejected.

    Slovak Culture Minister and Chair of the Government Council for Mass Media, Ivan Hudec, sent a letter on 7th August to the Slovak Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting (RRTV), demanding that the RRTV stop the broadcasting of the majority of private audio-visual media, as these media, with the exception of the private VTV station, transmit programmes in conflict with the law.
    As the RRTV Chairman Peter Juras told a news conference in Bratislava on [26th August], in the aforementioned letter Hudec notified the RRTV of the adoption and extensive explanation and wrong interpretation of the law No 468/1991 Coll on the operating of radio and television broadcasts (Article 10, Paragraph 5).
    According to Hudec, the RRTV takes this into account only if an applicant for a broadcast licence does not have a broadcasting radius over the whole territory of Slovakia.  Hudec believes that if broadcasting exceeds the territory of the region where its operator is based, the operator has a dominant position among other operators.
    Hudec, in his letter, advocated the opinion that every operator whose broadcasting covers the territory of more regions has to have its licence approved by parliament.  Hudec in this connection has asked the RRTV to take into account the fact that there is no all-territory covering by any individual radio or TV signal in Slovakia.  The only private broadcaster which broadcasts in accordance with the law (having obtained parliament’s approval) is thus the VTV company (VTV transmits its programmes via satellite).
    In a resolution adopted unequivocally at the session on [25th August] after consultation with prominent lawyers, the RRTV issued a statement saying that no operator of radio or television broadcasting has a dominant position in any region.  No radio or TV station covers more than 50-52 per cent of a region.  According to the RRTV, the request by Minister Hudec is thus legally irrelevant and there is no legal reason for stripping any operator of its licence.  The Slovak parliament approves solely all-country broadcasting, which happened with VTV.  No other licence holder has a transmission covering comparable to VTV, reads the RRTV statement.

TASR news agency, Bratislava, August 26, 1998

II.  Radio head’s response to minister’s call for licence review.

    The minister of culture, Ivan Hudec, has called on the Radio and Television Broadcasting Council [RRTV] to re-evaluate the licences granted to those radio and TV stations that broadcast in more than one of Slovakia’s regions.  Hudec believes that in order to be able to broadcast nationwide, they need parliament’s approval. . . .
    Peter Juras [RRTV chairman] has confirmed that all nine members of the RRTV refused Hudec’s request.  Radio Twist general director Andrej Hryc comments on the issue:
[Hryc]      The minister of culture, Ivan Hudec, has once again written a very incompetent letter which clearly shows that he, as the minister of culture and the chairman of the government’s mass media council, is not familiar with the department he is responsible for.  This is not the first—and I fear not the last—time.  I have already filed a legal suit against Hudec in connection with a similar case . . . .  It is very likely that we will be forced to file another complaint.

Radio Twist, Bratislava, August 26, 1998

III.  Election campaign coverage guidelines.

    The Slovak Republic Radio and Television Broadcasting Council (RRTV) has issued recommendations for the behaviour of electronic media during the election campaign, the moratorium and the elections.
    According to the recommendations, the public service media should work out guidelines for broadcasting the election campaign on the basis of an agreement with political parties.  The media operators must safeguard the right of parties running in the elections to equal access to news and current affairs programmes and maintain strict balance in presenting politicians’ views and statements in individual authentic situations.  During the election campaign and, in particular, during the moratorium, it is necessary, according to the RRTV, to exclude editorial commentaries from news programmes, and video and audio recordings from political parties’ news conferences and rallies should be strictly news-orientated.  The RRTV also recommends that the accompanying video footage and text do not include comment, expression of a viewpoint or criticism linked to the event being reported.  The coverage of news conferences and public statements by political parties and movements on politically controversial issues must, according to the RRTV, be subject to the right of response.

‘Narodna obroda,’ Bratislava, June 30, 1998