CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 février 2026

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 16 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6470/25 Borko JOSIFOVSKI against Serbia lodged on 14 February 2025 communicated on 26 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a whistleblower, the applicant in his capacity of Head of the Emergency Department of a State-run hospital at the material time. He alleges to have suffered adverse consequences in terms of his health, reputation and career (removal from his position in the hospital), as well as his legal situation (criminal charges), because of speaking out publicly and lodging a number of complaints in relation to certain persons and illegal practices in his department. Specifically, the applicant maintained, inter alia , that two doctors had withheld urgent medical assistance to dying patients in order to earn money by selling their home addresses to private funeral companies. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains about a breach of his right to freedom of expression, “given the adverse consequences suffered in response to his whistleblowing activities”. In addition to that, under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about: (a) the “lack of adequate reasoning” in the decisions of the national courts which ultimately ruled against him in the proceedings which he had brought as a whistleblower; (b) the “lack of adequate reasoning” contained in the Constitutional Court’s own decision adopted thereafter; and (c) the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant, regarding his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, exhausted and/or properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no.   21881/20, §§ 138-146, 27 November 2023, and Vučković and Others v.   Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§   69 ‑ 77, 25   March 2014, both with further references)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see Halet v. Luxembourg [GC], no.   21884/18, §§ 120-154, 14 February 2023, with further references)?   3.     Having regard to the reasons given by the Court of Appeal (Gž   Uz.   1/19), the Supreme Court of Cassation (Rev. Uz. 6/19) and the Constitutional Court (Už. 8455/2020) in their decisions of 25 March 2019, 16   January 2020 and 8 October 2024, respectively, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example and among other authorities, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia , no.   41394/15, §§ 100 and 101, 7   February 2023, with further references)?   4.     Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Comingersoll S.A. v.   Portugal   ([GC], no.   35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV)?