CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 24391/24 Gaspar ŠABAD against Estonia lodged on 15 August 2024 communicated on 20 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns antisemitic speech. I.K. had registered a public meeting titled “In support of Palestine” to take place in the city centre of Tallinn on 15 February 2024. It appears that he had registered numerous other similar events, foreseen to last from fifteen to thirty minutes each, for other surrounding dates as well. According to the materials submitted, the meeting on 15 February 2024 consisted of I.K. standing alone in a park in central Tallinn, playing a monotonous pre-recorded text through a loudspeaker. The text made reference, inter alia , to various antisemitic narratives (such as holocaust not having taken place, Jews dominating the media, controlling “the west” through the IMF, and being behind the war in Ukraine). The applicant, who identifies as a member of Jewish community, attended the meeting. He made two calls to the emergency number 112, firstly informing the authorities of the meeting and the antisemitic speech by I.K., and fifteen minutes later informing the authorities that I.K. had left, and that there was no longer a need to dispatch police patrol. The applicant subsequently lodged a report of criminal offence. The Police and Border Guard board refused to initiate offence proceedings. They noted that the speech might have entailed distorted facts and could be seen as “knowing and unnecessary crossing of a line of accepted criticism”. However, the police considered that the facts of the case did not qualify neither under the offence of “incitement of hatred” (as it could not be seen as a public call for hatred, violence or discrimination) nor under “breach of public order”. The Harju Country Court, whose decision was final, upheld the police’s refusal. The applicant notes that under domestic law there are no accessible civil law remedies to address the alleged violation of his rights. The applicant complains under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about the authorities’ tolerance of antisemitic speech and their failure to take positive steps to counter it by way of police action during the meeting and/or through subsequent criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in relation to all aspects of his complaint lodged under Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14? In particular, was the criminal-law remedy used by the applicant an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the statements made by I.K.? Were there administrative-law and/or civil-law remedies in place under domestic law that the applicant could have had recourse to in relation to the alleged police inactivity during the meeting and the substance of the statements made by I.K. (compare Panayotova v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 12509/13, § 64, 7 May 2019, and Nepomnyashchiy and   Others v. Russia , nos. 39954/09 and 3465/17, § 80, 30 May 2023)?   2.     Did the statements at issue made by I.K. during the public meeting on 15 February 2024 affect the private life of the applicant in such a manner as to render Article 8 applicable in the case at hand (see Behar and Gutman v.   Bulgaria , no. 29335/13, §§ 65-73, 16 February 2021; Budinova and   Chaprazov v. Bulgaria , no. 12567/13, §§ 61-68, 16 February 2021, and Nepomnyashchiy and Others , cited above, §§ 57-62)?   3.     Did the State, by not reacting to the applicant’s call made during the public meeting informing the authorities of I.K.’s speech and thereafter dismissing the applicant’s criminal complaint, comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   14 (compare Király and Dömötör v. Hungary , no. 10851/13, §§ 63 ‑ 69 and 71-78, 17 January 2017, and Nepomnyashchiy and Others , cited above, §§ 81-83 and 85)?