CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 December 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4545/21 Vesna PEŠIĆ against Serbia lodged on 15 December 2020 communicated on 19 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE This application concerns the right to free expression, as well as a number of alleged fair trial issues in the related civil and constitutional proceedings. In particular, the applicant, a well-known former politician, complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the breach of her right to free expression, stemming from the final civil court judgment rendered against her in respect of an online article in which she criticized the failure of the police to prevent the “unlawful demolition” of a number of buildings as part of a redevelopment project in Belgrade. Having lost this case, the applicant was ordered to jointly pay a total of approximately 2,000 euros for damages and litigation costs. The applicant furthermore complains under Article 6 of the Convention of: (i) a particular procedural issue in the course of the above-mentioned civil proceedings which had been brought against her; (ii) the refusal of the Supreme Court of Cassation to consider her appeal on points of law on its merits; and (iii) the “inadequately reasoned” judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been denied by the Supreme Court of Cassation the “right to a court” in the determination of her civil rights and obligations as a consequence of its refusal to consider her appeal on points of law on its merits (see, for example, Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no.   51357/07, §§ 112-116, 15   March 2018) and bearing in mind the relationship between the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and the Public Information Act on the issue? Furthermore, having regard to the (a) alleged limitations imposed on the applicant’s testimony given in the course of the impugned civil proceedings, and (b) the reasons subsequently given by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 16 June 2020, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations (see, mutatis mutandis , Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands , 27 October 1993, § 31, Series A no.   274, and Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, §§ 24 and 27 in fine , 9 April 2013)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Milosavljević v. Serbia (no. 2) , no. 47274/19, §§ 53-57, 21 September 2021, and Lepojić v. Serbia , no. 13909/05, §§ 73-75 and 77, 6 November 2007)?