CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2023

.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 30 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31652/21 M.G. and L.G. against Croatia lodged on 16 June 2021 communicated on 10 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are children of a journalist and activist in the town of Virovitica. Following one of their mother’s political acts, consisting of throwing balloons filled with red paint at a historical building in Virovitica, a certain M.H., town’s employee, wrote on the town’s official Facebook page that “the social services should take away” the applicants from their mother, who should thereafter be “imprisoned and sentenced to voluntary work for 40   years”. The applicants thereafter unsuccessfully sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against M.H. for the criminal offence of violation of the privacy of children. The applicants complain, under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, that they have been subject to online public hate speech, which formed an attack on their human dignity, reputation and private life, and that they had no effective means of protection. They further complain, under Article 14 of the Convention, that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their mother’s political opinion. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was a civil action in damages an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of their complaint under Article 8 taken alone and/or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ refusal to prosecute M.H. for his Facebook comments? In particular, did those comments amount to hate speech requiring criminal prosecution, as maintained by the applicants (compare Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no. 41288/15, 14 January 2020)?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the grounds of their mother’s political opinion, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and/or 13 of the Convention?