CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 1 October 2020 Published on 19 October 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 1313/20 Marko FRANCIŠKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 December 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was invited to the premises of the Croatian National Television (“HRT”) in order to make a brief statement presenting his electoral list in local elections. After he had been interrupted during his speech by HRT employees, the video of the incident, including his subsequent statement that a certain G.R., then director of HRT, had collaborated with the former Yugoslav intelligence service, was published on YouTube. In subsequent civil proceedings instituted by G.R., the applicant was ordered to pay him damages in the amount of 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 4,000 euros). The applicant complains, under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, that the proceedings had been unfair and that his right to freedom of expression had been breached.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   2.     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? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected?