CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 } Communicated on 5 November 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58955/13 Diana VUČINA against Croatia lodged on 6 September 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Diana Vučina, is a Croatian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Split. She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Štimac, a lawyer practising in Split. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 3 September 2009 a lifestyle magazine with nationwide distribution, Gloria , published a photograph of the applicant taken during a concert in Split. Accompanying text indicated that she was the wife of the then Mayor of Split, Ž.K. Following the publication of her photograph the applicant asked Gloria to print a correction; however, she never received a reply from the magazine, and nor has the published information ever been rectified. On 10 November 2009 the applicant lodged a civil action against the publisher of Gloria in the Split Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Splitu ) seeking damages for the erroneous publication of the photograph of her. The applicant alleged that she and her real husband, both university professors, were very active in the social life of Split, and that following the publication of her photograph in Gloria , people had started approaching her, addressing her by the name of the Mayor’s wife, and taking photographs of her. During the proceedings the Split Municipal Court commissioned an expert report on the question of whether the publication of the photograph had caused her emotional distress. At a hearing on 8 March 2012 a court expert gave evidence indicating that the applicant had indeed suffered stress due to the erroneous publication of the photograph, in large part due to the fact that the Mayor was a highly controversial person who was viewed in a negative light by many. On 22 March 2012 the Split Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, ordering the magazine to pay her damages for the breach of her personality rights. The Split Municipal Court held that due to the often negative public perception of the Mayor, the applicant had had every reason to be distressed by the erroneous publication of the photograph – even more so given that the applicant and her husband were university professors who were active in society and who, moreover, had children of school age who might have faced questions by their peers. The defendant appealed against this judgment before the Split County Court ( Županijski sud u Splitu ); on 6 December 2012 the Split County Court upheld the appeal and reversed the first-instance judgment dismissing the applicant’s civil action. It held in particular that irrespective of the controversies surrounding the Mayor, there were no negative connotations in the applicant being identified as his wife in the photograph published in Gloria . The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against this judgment before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ); on 6 June 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed her constitutional complaint, endorsing the findings of the Split County Court. Meanwhile, an Internet portal used the photograph from Gloria (again erroneously identifying the applicant as the Mayor’s wife) to accompany an article that discussed the details of an extra-marital affair in which the Mayor had allegedly engaged, as well as certain alleged irregularities concerning his business dealings (with which his wife was also associated). In this respect the applicant obtained a correction of that information and damages from the Internet portal under a judgment of the Split Municipal Court of 12 May 2011, which was upheld on appeal by the Split County Court on 11   July 2013. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about a breach of her right to respect for her private life by the erroneous publication of a photograph of her in the magazine Gloria .   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the erroneous publication of the applicant’s photo give rise to a violation of her right to respect for her private life, protected by Article 8 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.