CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24832/24 Nataša NELEVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 21 August 2024 communicated on 3 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged failure of the State to protect the applicant’s moral rights as an author. The applicant is a theatre critic who published a critique of a theatre play in an electronic journal, with a clear disclaimer stating that the texts may only be reproduced in other media with the author’s consent. Still, it was reproduced without seeking such consent by a daily newspaper. The domestic courts concluded that it was sufficient that the text was reproduced in its entirety, with the indication of the source and the author’s name, and rejected the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure of the State to protect her moral rights as an author. She further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not examine arguments put forward by her and that their decisions were arbitrary.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts examine the arguments put forward by the applicant and were the judgments of the domestic courts properly reasoned?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the alleged failure of the State to protect the applicant’s intellectual property interests in relation to the alleged violation of her moral rights as an author on account of an unauthorised publication of her critique (see Balan v.   Moldova , no.   19247/03, § 15, 29 January 2008, and Safarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 885/12, § 9, 1 September 2022)?