CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 janvier 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 225 January 2019 Šimunić v. Croatia (dec.) - 20373/17 Decision 22.1.2019 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Football player’s conviction of minor offence for provocative chanting of an official greeting of a fascist movement and totalitarian regime: inadmissible Facts – The applicant, a football player, was convicted of a minor offence of addressing messages to spectators of a football match, the content of which expressed or enticed hatred on the basis of race, nationality and faith. Law – Article 10: The Court found it important to refer to Article   17, however, it did not find it necessary to address its applicability as the case was in any event inadmissible. The impugned decisions of the national courts finding the applicant guilty of a minor offence constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and combating racism and discrimination at sport competitions. The grounds put forward by the domestic courts in convicting the applicant had been relevant and sufficient. The national courts had found that the applicant had addressed the spectators at a football match by shouting “For Home” and when the spectators had replied “Ready” the applicant had repeated the same three more times. The national courts had carefully analysed all aspects of the case and had held that the said expression, irrespective of its original Croatian literary and poetic meaning, had been used also as an official greeting of the Ustashe movement (the Croatian Revolutionary Movement) and totalitarian regime of the Independent State of Croatia. That phrase had been present in all official documents of that State. The national courts also held that the Ustashe movement had originated from fascism, based, inter alia , on racism, and thus symbolised hatred towards people of a different religious or ethnic identity and the manifestation of racist ideology. On that basis the national courts had found the applicant guilty of a minor offence of addressing messages to spectators of a football match, the content of which expressed or enticed hatred on the basis of race, nationality and faith. The applicant, being a famous football player and a role-model for many football fans, should have been aware of the possible negative impact of provocative chanting on spectators’ behaviour, and should have abstained from such conduct. He had been fined about 3,300 euros. The amount of fine the applicant had been ordered to pay was not, in itself, disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. There were no strong reasons which would require the Court to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts and to set aside the balancing struck by them. The disputed interference had been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and the authorities of the respondent State, having had regard to the relatively modest nature of the fine imposed on the applicant and the context in which the applicant had shouted the impugned phrase, had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s interest in free speech, on the one hand, and society’s interests in promoting tolerance and mutual respect at sports events as well as combating discrimination through sport on the other hand, thus acting within their margin of appreciation. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). The Court also rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article   7 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   12 as manifestly ill-founded. (See also Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], 17224/11, 27   June 2017, Information Note   208 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes