CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 May 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25504/24 Ondrej PETERKA against Croatia lodged on 5 September 2024 communicated on 5 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who is a Czech lawyer and, since 2015, a member of the Croatian Bar Association (“CBA”). Following his registration with the CBA as a foreign lawyer practising in Croatia under his home-country professional title, the applicant sought to establish a law firm there. To do so, he had to obtain consent from the CBA but was eventually refused on the grounds of his status of a foreign lawyer. Even before receiving the refusal, the applicant, represented by his Czech lawyer, had submitted a complaint to the President of the Czech Republic complaining about his inability to provide services in Croatia, which he deemed contrary to the rules of the European Union law. The Czech Minitry of Industry and Trade was also informed of the situation. Consequently, the Czech President organised a meeting with the Croatian Ambassador to the Czech Republic, and the Croatian Embassy in the Czech Republic inquired with the CBA into the reasons for the refusal. Understanding this course of action as political pressure, the CBA instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on charges of having committed a grave breach of his duty and for having violated the reputation of the legal profession – in particular, that of the CBA – and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of two years. By a judgment of the Supreme Court, the suspension was set aside and the applicant was ultimately fined 10,000 Croatian kunas. The Constitutional Court dismissed his constitutional complaint by a decision served on his representative on 16 May 2024. The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the imposition of the disciplinary sanction on him represented an unlawful interference with his freedom of expression, which lacked any legitimate aim and was in any event disproportionate, having regard to, inter alia , his status of a lawyer.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression by the domestic courts’ decisions imposing on him a disciplinary sanction, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Morice v.   France [GC], no.   29369/10, §§ 124-39, ECHR 2015, and Rogalski v.   Poland , no.   5420/16, §§   38-53, 23 March 2023)?