CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 18 December 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 19728/08 Divna TORDAJ against Serbia lodged on 19 April 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Divna Tordaj, is a Serbian national, who was born in   1938 and lives in Belgrade. She is represented before the Court by Ms B. Zarić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows: On 13 November 2003 the applicant started a private prosecution against P.A. for defamation claiming that P.A. had falsely accused her of extortion and nuisance in his letter to the authorities of Municipality of Zvezdara ( Opština Zvezdara , one of the Belgrade municipalities) of 18 July 2003. On 25 February 2004 the Belgrade Municipal Court ordered the applicant to submit some additional information, which she did on 13 April 2004. On 9 March 2006 the applicant applied to the criminal court to speed-up the proceedings in view of the short limitation period in respect of defamation. On 14 March 2006 the criminal court responded that the proceedings would become statute-barred in August 2007 and that it would take all necessary measures to prevent that. On 29 March 2007 the Municipal Court found the defendant guilty of defamation. The Belgrade District Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial on 28 June 2007. On 30 August 2007 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings as statute-barred. The District Court upheld that decision on 24   October   2007. B.     Relevant domestic law In the present case, the domestic courts applied the Criminal Code 2005 ( Krivični zakonik ; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia nos. 85/05, 88/05, 107/05, 72/09 and 111/09), although the alleged defamation took place in 2003, since the provisions of that Code were more lenient for the defendant in respect of the punishment. According to Article 104 of the Code, the criminal prosecution for defamation is time-barred after expiry of four years from the commission of this offence.   COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that it became impossible for her to obtain a decision on her claim in criminal proceedings because of the negligence of the judicial authorities, which led to the discontinuation of those proceedings under the statute of limitations.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant’s complaint compatible ratione materiae with Article 6 of the Convention (see Gorou v. Greece (no. 3) , no. 21845/03, § 21, 22   June   2006)?   2.     If the answer to the first question is affirmative, did the applicant have an effective access to a court in respect of her criminal complaint concerning defamation in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that the criminal prosecution became statute-barred?