CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 2022

.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 } Published on 23 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47600/17 Čedomir BACKOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 21 June 2017 communicated on 6 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a practising lawyer who was fined for contempt of court in the context of an election-related enforcement case wherein his client, an elected municipal councillor, sought to retain his seat following a ballot. The applicant lawyer complains that the very imposition of the fine amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention, particularly since his written comments were mere value judgments and were focused on the “improper conduct” of the impugned proceedings by the enforcement judge. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 170-175 and 181, ECHR 2005 ‑ XIII, and Morice v.   France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-139, ECHR 2015)?