CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33776/20 Bojan PAJTIĆ against Serbia lodged on 13 July 2020 communicated on 10 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention (the applicant is a politician) that the domestic courts failed to protect his right to reputation against another politician’s unconfirmed accusations of violent criminal acts in the press. The final domestic decision was given by the Constitutional Court on 13 February 2020. The applicant complains that the reasons adduced by the national courts were not relevant and sufficient, that the courts did not distinguish between the statements of fact and value judgments, and did not strike a fair balance between the two conflicting values, notably his right to respect for private life, and the respondent party’s freedom of   expression.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, for example, Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France , no. 71111/01, § 43, 14 June 2007; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 84 and 91, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no.   27510/08, §§ 198-199, and the authorities cited therein, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017) ?