CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 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 11 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61891/19 Marko TEŠIĆ against Serbia lodged on 21 November 2019 communicated on 20 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a practising lawyer who was fined for contempt of court in the context of criminal proceedings where his client was charged with an attempted murder. In his written statements submitted to the Higher court, the applicant claimed, inter alia, that he had to ask for a 5 minutes’ break during the trial, so that the “heated passions of the trial judge calm down”. The domestic courts considered the applicant’s statements regarding the conduct of the trial judge insulting and damaging to the honour and reputation of the court and the trial judge. 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 trial judge. 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 (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)?