CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Published on 22 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19802/24 Miroje JOVANOVIĆ against Montenegro and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 April 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s freedom of expression in court proceedings and his right to a fair trial. The applicant is a lawyer practicing in Novi Sad, Serbia. At the relevant time he was representing three defendants in criminal proceedings ongoing before the Montenegrin courts, who were, with several other persons, accused of forming a criminal organisation, attempt of terrorism, and inciting preparation of actions against the constitutional order and security of Montenegro. During the criminal proceedings the applicant was fined for disrupting the order and procedural discipline on 7 December 2017, 27   September and 13   December 2018, in the amounts of 500 euros (EUR), EUR 500 and EUR   1,000, respectively. As concerns the first two occasions, the first-instance decisions to fine the applicant were upheld by the Court of Appeal, and in both cases the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 10 and remitted the cases. The first-instance decisions to fine the applicant were upheld again by the Court of Appeal and the applicant’s subsequent constitutional appeals were dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 26   December 2023. On the third occasion the first-instance decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 14 January 2019, and the applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed on 26 December 2023. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the very imposition of the fines amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression, particularly since he only attempted to procedurally intervene and lodge an objection during the criminal proceedings. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the courts which fined him were not impartial and that the relevant decisions were inadequately reasoned. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present cases (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, §§ 61 and 64, ECHR 2005-XIII; see, also, Žugić v.   Croatia , no. 3699/08, §§ 63-71, 31 May 2011)? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Also, were the reasons given in the relevant domestic decisions based on a manifest factual or legal error committed by the domestic court, resulting in a “denial of justice” (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, § 85, 11 July 2017)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Kyprianou , cited above, §§   170-75 and 181, and Morice v.   France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§   124-39, ECHR 2015)? In this respect, to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant’s profession relevant to his claim and to the State’s margin of appreciation in this field?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with the complete decision of the Court of Appeal of 30 December 2020. They are also invited to inform the Court if there were any further developments in the criminal proceedings thereafter and, if so, to submit all the decisions that might have been delivered in the meantime.       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 19802/24 Jovanović v. Montenegro 01/07/2024 Miroje JOVANOVIĆ 1979 Novi Sad Serbian 2. 20868/24 Jovanović v. Montenegro 04/07/2024 Miroje JOVANOVIĆ 1979 Novi Sad Serbian 3. 20872/24 Jovanović v. Montenegro 06/07/2024 Miroje JOVANOVIĆ 1979 Novi Sad Serbian