.jpg)
Through a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs sought to prohibit the distribution of the documentary miniseries VINA: Případ fakulta (GUILT: The Faculty Case). It maps the circumstances of the tragic shooting at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University, including the actions of security forces and the shooting in the Klánovice Forest—a topic that is of fundamental importance to the public and, at the same time, deeply painful for many people.
"The entire dispute was based on a clash between two groups of constitutionally protected rights: the right to the protection of personality on one side, and freedom of expression and the right to information on the other," adds attorney Zuzana Brečková Lovíšková.
The court ordered the removal of already published episodes and prohibited the publication of those not yet released. The motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs even concerned episodes that neither the plaintiffs nor the court had access to at the time of the decision.
Furthermore, such a broad restriction on freedom of expression occurred even before the court had reached a decision on the merits of the case.
We prepared an argument that focused primarily on the disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and the significance of the public interest in being informed about the topic covered by the miniseries.
"We argued that no specific statement, shot, or other part of the work had been identified that would justify banning the entire miniseries. And last but not least, we emphasized the constitutional prohibition of censorship," describes Vít Kučera.
The case thus raised a fundamental question of media law: under what conditions can freedom of expression and the right to information be restricted by a preliminary injunction?
The appellate court reviewed the content of the miniseries and concluded that it is an investigative documentary, further determining that it did not believe the miniseries was capable of infringing upon the plaintiffs' personality rights, nor that it was demeaning toward the victims..
"The court explicitly acknowledged that this is a matter of public interest, among other things, in terms of the need to prevent similar events and to monitor the preparedness of security forces," explains junior associate Monika Slováková.
When deciding on the preliminary injunction, the appellate court also took into account the way the miniseries was produced. In its reasoning, it stated that the miniseries comes across as serious, shows no signs of sensationalism, and certainly contains nothing that would glorify the perpetrator, as the plaintiffs had suggested.
It also addressed the issue of the potential identification of some victims. In this context, it took into account that their identities were already available from other public sources and classified any identification in the miniseries under a statutory license. At the same time, it pointed out that the miniseries does not focus on the specific story of any one victim, but rather on the circumstances of the tragic event.
The court also addressed the plaintiffs' concern that the miniseries could inspire someone to commit a similar act. It labeled such reasoning as speculative and stated that, in itself, it cannot be a reason to interfere with freedom of expression. According to the court, documentary coverage of tragic events can, on the contrary, contribute to public discussion about their causes and possibilities for prevention.
Since the claim asserted by the lawsuit was not substantiated, the appellate court did not find a need for an interim arrangement of relations between the parties. It therefore amended the decision of the court of first instance so that it dismissed the motion for a preliminary injunction.
The decision concerns only the preliminary injunction. It is therefore not a final decision on the validity of the claims asserted, nor is it a decision on the merits of the entire disputewhich is still ongoing.
The case demonstrates that even in highly sensitive matters, it is necessary to find a balance between the protection of personality rights and the right of the media to report on issues of public interest.
"This case is important for media practice primarily because it highlights the limits of preliminary injunctions, which can restrict the publication of journalistic content even before a final decision on the merits," summarizes attorney Zuzana Brečková Lovíšková.
The decision may thus serve as an important guide for similar cases involving investigative journalism and reporting on serious issues of public concern.
Disputes are often an unavoidable solution. They can be demanding, complex, and frequently exhausting. That is why we always prioritize their impact on you or your business, weighing all options and finding the right path before we head to court together.
And when it does come to court, we draw on our experience – we have spent hundreds of hours in courtrooms – fighting for our clients. Even your story deserves attention. Treat yourself to an attorney who will give it to you.
