CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 13 September 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15419/17 REJTING CENTAR SRBIJE against Serbia lodged on 14 February 2017 communicated on 25 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a non-governmental organisation focused on educational issues, notably on conducting research regarding the quality of higher education in Serbia and then making its findings public. In order to obtain the relevant information, the applicant organisation wrote directly to various State-run institutions. Where said institutions failed to provide the information in question, the applicant organisation proceeded to formally initiate misdemeanour proceedings ( prekršajni postupak ) against the persons in charge. In most situations, following a conviction, this approach apparently secured the information sought at the outset. In the present case, however, the applicant organisation’s request for the institution of misdemeanour proceedings was rejected on the basis that it, being a legal entity ( pravno lice ), had no standing to bring such proceedings, unlike natural persons ( fizička lica ) and despite having also put forth a compensation claim. In view of the above, under Articles 6, 10 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant organisation complains that: (a) it was denied the “right to a court” while attempting to secure compliance with its prerogative to receive the relevant information and have its compensation claim adjudicated; (b) it did not have a fair hearing in the impugned misdemeanour proceedings, given the existence of flagrantly inconsistent domestic case-law in identical situations; (c) it was ultimately denied access to the relevant information; and (d) as a legal entity, it was procedurally discriminated against compared to natural persons.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant organisation exhausted and/or properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular and as regards the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, were the remedies provided for in the Free Access to Public Information Act ( Zakon o slobodnom pristupu informacijama od javnog značaja , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia nos.   120/04, 54/07, 104/09 and 36/10) effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 70 and 71, ECHR 2004 ‑ I; Kenedi v. Hungary , no. 31475/05, § 33, 26 May 2009; and Shapovalov v. Ukraine , no. 45835/05, § 49, 31 July 2012)? Should Article 6 § 1 of the Convention be deemed applicable, has there been a violation of this provision? In particular, has the applicant organisation been denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right to a court” in the determination of its civil rights and obligations (see, for example, Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, §§ 112-116, 15   March 2018)? Furthermore, in the light of the applicant organisation’s allegation that the relevant courts applied flagrantly different case-law to identical situations, did it have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, was the principle of legal certainty contained in this provision complied with by the domestic judiciary (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to receive information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016, and Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia , no. 48135/06, 25   June 2013)?   4.     Has the applicant organization suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its right to a fair trial, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 thereof (see, for example, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 162-164, 29 November 2016)? In particular, was the applicant organisation as a legal entity ( pravno lice ) discriminated against compared to natural persons ( fizička lica ) in the context of its complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?