CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 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 11 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 18827/21 and 46881/21 Darinka GOSPOČIĆ against Croatia lodged on 29 March 2021 and 16 September 2021 respectively communicated on 20 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicant’s freedom of expression. The applicant’s neighbours built a farm on which they keep wild game (fallow deer). The applicant maintained that the farm had been built illegally and that she has been exposed to excessive noise from the animals and unpleasant smells. She had lodged several complaints against the neighbours and local officials, alleging various unlawful actions on their part, but her complaints were dismissed. In 2019 the applicant was found guilty of the criminal offence of serious shaming ( teško sramoćenje ) of her neighbours for stating in front of three people, privately in an office, that they were “criminals, who were in mafia with the town chairman”. The criminal court noted that the applicant had filed numerous complaints against the neighbours and the town chairman and that she could therefore not be convicted of defamation, since it could not be shown that she had been aware that her statements had been untrue. However, since her statements were nonetheless susceptible of causing harm to her neighbours’ honour and reputation, and she uttered them in front of three other persons, she was nonetheless guilty of serious shaming under Article   148(2) of the Criminal Code. The applicant was convicted to a suspended fine in the amount of 3,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 400   euros (EUR)). Meanwhile, her neighbours also instituted civil proceedings against her for those same statements and by a final judgment of 3 March 2020, the applicant was ordered to pay them damages in the amount of HRK 6,000   (approximately EUR 800). The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the violation of her freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?