CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s8BB05B69 { width:98.74%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s5AFCE44B { width:7.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDFAE674B { width:33.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB3308C3 { width:20.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85C470FA { width:18.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDFDFB747 { width:19.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA43E462F { width:7.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2504CB35 { width:33.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1169A383 { width:20.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59E6A1C6 { width:18.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A73A3A5 { width:19.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 10 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24738/19 Ilir GAŠI and Others against Serbia lodged on 30 April 2019 communicated on 20 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are journalists and civil sector activists, frequently criticising the Government and the authorities. In early 2016 they protested against a lack of transparency of two large-scale construction projects in Belgrade, and the changes in the management of Radio-Television of Vojvodina. In May and June 2016 several pro-Government journalists and media outlets accused the applicants of, inter alia , being foreign agents who wanted to incite separatism and disintegration of the State, radicalise the protests, provoke conflicts with police and create chaos in Serbia, and that they should be criminally prosecuted for their subversive activities. One of the articles’ headlines also implied that the then Prime Minister (now President) would be killed, and the article itself contained photographs of the applicants. The applicants filed a criminal complaint for racial and other discrimination, and breach of equality, against the individuals making such allegations but the State Prosecution and the Appellate State Prosecution rejected it. On 31 October 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected their constitutional appeal, which decision was served on them between 1 and 5   November 2018. The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that the State has not discharged its positive obligation to protect them from the threats and media campaign against them, which intimidated and dissuaded them to continue expressing their opinion on public matters.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, was there a positive obligation of the State to protect the applicants in the circumstances of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 59, ECHR 2011; Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 44306/98, § 39, ECHR   2003 ‑ VI; and Dink v. Turkey , nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14   September 2010)? If so, has the State discharged that obligation?       No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ilir GAŠI 1980 Serbian Belgrade 2. Vukašin OBRADOVIĆ 1962 Serbian Belgrade 3. Antonela RIHA 1963 Serbian Belgrade 4. Tamara SKROZA 1973 Serbian Belgrade