Atresmedia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación S.A. v. Spain, No. 29807/23, ECtHR (Fifth Section), 8 October 2026

The Court unanimously finds no violation of Article 10 ECHR, read in the light of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the Spanish Central Electoral Commission’s refusal to accept the format of an election debate proposed by a private broadcaster in 2019. The debate would have included Vox, which had not secured parliamentary representation in the previous equivalent elections, while excluding three parties which had. Despite the State’s relatively narrow margin of appreciation, the interference was prescribed by law, pursued the protection of the rights of others and was proportionate. The decisive considerations were the limited scope of the restriction, the general criteria based on previous electoral results and the possibility of organising a televised debate including both Vox and the excluded parties. The judgment protects electoral pluralism and equality without granting authorities unrestricted power over editorial choices.

Art. 10 ECHR

Art. 20, 23, 53 and 81 of the Spanish Constitution

Art. 66(2) of Organic Law no. 5/1985 on the General Electoral System (LOREG)

Article 10 of the ECHR does not prevent a State from requiring private television broadcasters, during an electoral campaign, to respect the principles of pluralism and proportionality when shaping political debates. Such restrictions constitute a legitimate interference with editorial autonomy, aimed at ensuring a level playing field among competitors and the right to free elections. The decision of an electoral authority to prohibit a televised debate that includes an extra-parliamentary party favoured by opinion polls while excluding forces with parliamentary representation does not violate freedom of expression. The measure is proportionate if it does not ban general news coverage of the excluded force, but merely prevents a discriminatory format.