OPRAVDANOST MIJEŠANJA JAVNE VLASTI U OSTVARIVANJE PRAVA NA SLOBODU IZRAŽAVANJA U PRAVNOJ TEORIJI I SUDSKOJ PRAKSI

Abstract

The right to freedom of expression is one of the basic foundations of everyone demo- cratic society. However, this right can be subject to restrictions for the protection of other rights and freedoms. It is being worked on, with reference points of view of legal theory and judicial practice, especially the practice of the European Court for human rights and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, analyzes when interfe- rence in the first on freedom of expression justified, and when not. Introduction show the most important international, regional, European and national legal acts that determine and guarantee freedom of expression. In the central part of the work forms of public authority interference in the right to freedom of expression are investiga- ted and criteria for assessing the justification of interference that have developed in judicial practice. In particular, the need to apply three “tests” during evaluation is highlighted objections to the interference, and the legality of the interference, legiti- mate goals are analyzed which were aimed at and the necessity of mixing in a demo- cratic society. By rating of legal sources and court practice, the author concludes that the courts do not analyze always all the circumstances of the case, that they do not always apply the adopted criteria and principled positions of the European Court of Human Rights and that judges some times have different opinions about when public authority interferes with freedom expressions justified, and when not, and someti- mes apply conflicting principled positions of the European Court of Human Rights in the same legal matter, or apply positions that have been changed in the meantime. In order to protect the mentioned right and standardize court practice, the author gives guidelines for work on future cases. Considers that the court which evaluates the interference objection should consider the context of the case as a whole, take care that the limitation of one’s freedom of expression is too high socially necessary, that it is commensurate with a legitimate goal and that they are given for it relevant and sufficient reasons and considers it important to follow and properly apply recent court practice, especially the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.