CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 6 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19362/18 Stjepan MESIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 April 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for defamation in which the applicant – a former President of Croatia – was ordered to pay HRK 50,000 to a French attorney of Croatian origin for tarnishing his reputation. In particular, in 2006 the said attorney filed a criminal complaint in France against a third person concerning a mafia-ordered murder in which he suggested that the applicant was a political patron of a well-known mafia boss in Croatia. When asked by journalists at a press conference to comment on this the applicant made a statement suggesting that the attorney in question should, when coming to Zagreb, visit a certain psychiatric hospital where people like him could receive effective treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, does the expectation from political figures to display a greater degree of tolerance to criticism (see, for example, Lingens v.   Austria , 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103, and Lindon, Otchakovsky ‑ Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and   36448/02, § 46, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV) only mean that they should sustain from instituting criminal or civil proceedings against persons who may have tarnished their reputation, or it also means that they must sustain from replying to such criticism in a manner that may be injurious to the reputation of those who may have offended them in the first place?