C_202603288EN.000101.fmx.xml

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 February 2026 – Skupina 46 poslancov Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky v Národná rada Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-107/26, Skupina poslancov Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky)

(C/2026/3288)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Skupina 46 poslancov Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky

Defendant: Národná rada Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred

(a)

Must the requirement for ‘effective and non-discriminatory procedures and transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance’ pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act) (‘the EMFA’) be interpreted as meaning that national law must explicitly set out the specific criteria on the basis of which the successful candidate is to be selected, or is it sufficient for that law merely to set out the basic eligibility requirements for potential candidates?

(b)

With regard to the need for judicial review of decisions regarding the appointment and dismissal of a member of the management board or the head of management, to what extent must such decisions be supported by reasons? To what extent must the competitive selection procedure be subject to judicial review? Does the effectiveness of Article 5(2) of the EMFA also require, in the light of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that judicial review may be initiated by a person other than an unsuccessful candidate?

In the context of the appointment and dismissal of public broadcaster bodies and in the light of Article 4(2) of the EMFA, how should the requirement of ‘functional independence’ of public service media providers under Article 5(1) of the EMFA and the requirement of ‘independence’ of the head of management or the members of the management board under Article 5(2) of the EMFA be interpreted?

(a)

Are the requirements for such ‘independence’ met where national legislation contains only an exhaustive and narrow list of incompatible functions, and does not provide for [their] separation from the exercise of public authority by means of a general exclusion regarding incompatibility based on a factual assessment of the degree of [their] proximity to the exercise of public authority?

(b)

Are the requirements for such ‘independence’ met where national legislation vests in the Minister of Culture the power to appoint and dismiss four members of the nine-member management board, three of whom the Minister appoints and dismisses from among experts in the fields of media and audiovisual services, economics, law or information technology, and the fourth of whom is appointed and dismissed on a proposal from the Minister of Finance from among experts in the field of economics, while the remaining five members of the management board are selected and dismissed by the National Council of the Slovak Republic (‘the Parliament’ or ‘the National Council’) on a proposal from its competent committee, by an absolute majority of the members of the National Council present, such that the management board includes one expert in each of the fields of television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, economics, law and information technology, with the appointment and selection process preceded by an open competitive selection procedure? If so, can such a method for establishing the management board be considered sufficient to ensure the effective separation of its members from the executive branch of government; where appropriate, what safeguards, in addition to the judicial review referred to in Question I, should national legislation include to ensure the effective separation provided for in the EMFA?

What requirements arise from Article 5(1) of the EMFA for an ethics committee, which is an advisory body to the management board and whose (sole) task is to adopt positions on compliance with the charter to which programming staff, other creative staff and contributors to STVR [Slovenská televízia a rozhlas (Slovak Television and Radio)] are subject, and on compliance with general ethical standards by persons employed by STVR and its external contributors in the course of their activities, and to propose appropriate measures to ensure that compliance, given that those [positions and measures] must in each case be approved by the management board of the public broadcaster, where the requirement referred to in Article 5(2) of the EMFA, also in the light of recital 31 of the EMFA, does not apply to members of the ethics committee?

What specific safeguards ensuring the ‘editorial independence’ of creative staff of public service media providers vis-à-vis their management bodies or third parties, in accordance with Article 4(2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(3) of the EMFA, should be included in national legislation? Can the supervision of a public service media provider by an independent regulatory authority pursuant to Article 5(4) of the EMFA and the general provisions of media law, including in particular zákon č. 264/2022 Z. z. o mediálnych službách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (zákon o mediálnych službách) v znení neskorších predpisov [(Law No 264/2022 on Media Services and Amending and Supplementing Certain Laws (Law on Media Services), as amended)], be considered sufficient to ensure the effectiveness of such safeguards, or is it necessary for the effective application of Article 4(2), Article 5(1), and Article 6(3) of the EMFA that in the event of a possible breach of those provisions, penalties can be imposed on every party guilty of that breach, including the head of management and the members of the management board of the public service media provider or any other party guilty of that breach?

With regard to the intended result set out in Article 5 of the EMFA, can the decision of the legislature, which, pursuant to a law that was promulgated and that entered into force prior to the entry into force (application) of the EMFA, replaced the original public service media provider with a new public service media provider, be regarded as a breach of the duty of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union? If so, under what conditions?

(1) OJ L, 2024/1083.