CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2024

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13536/24 Aladin PAUČINAC against Serbia lodged on 28 March 2024 communicated on 25 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for insult in respect of statements made at an informal civic protest during the Covid-19 pandemic which were later published on his Facebook page.   The applicant is a founder of “Free Citizens’ Initiative”, a civic union based in Novi Pazar. He participated in several civic protests prompted by allegations of disproportionately high death rate in Novi Pazar during the Covid-19 pandemic and mismanagement of the City Hospital in that context. At one of them, in September 2020, he filmed himself saying that M. M., the director of the hospital, was a thief ( lopov ) and a carcass ( ljipsa ). The video was streamed live and later published on the applicant’s Facebook page. Following M. M.’s private criminal action, the applicant was found guilty of insult and fined with approximately 1,280 euros. The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding, as did the trial court, that the applicant’s comments had been excessive and had been made with the intention of denigrating and insulting M. M. On 19 September 2023, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal and upheld the reasoning of the lower courts. This decision was served on the applicant on 28 November 2023. It would appear that several similar proceedings, both criminal and civil, all instituted by M. M., are pending against the applicant. While invoking Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant essentially complains that the criminal conviction violated his right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? More specifically:   (a) Were the applicant’s comments a gratuitous personal attack on, or insult to M. (see Mamère v. France , no. 12697/03, § 25, ECHR 2006-XIII;   Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal , no. 37698/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-X; and, mutatis mutandis , Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, §§ 32-34, ECHR   1999-I)?   (b)     Did the national authorities strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, and the protection of M.   M.’s right to respect for his private life, on the other hand (see , mutatis mutandis , Milisavljević v. Serbia , no. 50123/06, § 38, 4   April 2017; Radio Broadcasting Company B92 AD v. Serbia , no. 67369/16, §   77, 5 September 2023; see also Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 45581/15,   §§ 158-62, 15   May 2023 ; Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v.   Hungary , no. 22947/13, § 77, 2 February 2016; Milosavljević v. Serbia , no.   57574/14, §   61, 25 May 2021; and Busuioc v. Moldova , no. 61513/00, §   64, 21   December 2004)?   (c) Was the nature and the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant a proportionate interference with his freedom of expression (see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI; Sanchez , cited above, §§ 205-08)? The applicant is invited to provide the Court with the information about his income.   The parties are requested to provide copies of all the documents produced in the course of all criminal and civil proceedings instituted by M. M. against the applicant which concern the applicant’s statements made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the functioning of the healthcare system in Novi Pazar.