CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 octobre 2023

.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 } Published on 6 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7450/22 Ivan GRBINIČEK against Croatia lodged on 2 February 2022 communicated on 18 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s freedom of expression. The applicant was found guilty of defamation in criminal proceedings and fined 5,000 HRK for having accused the local chief of police, J.C., of abuse of powers by “turning his police unit into his private police force”. He also stated that J.C. had ordered the police to issue him with numerous traffic fines as a result of which he had collected 83 fines in 6 months. When the applicant allegedly sent an SMS to J.C. asking him to meet and discuss what was going on, the latter filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for threat. The police then searched the applicant’s flat and business premises and found a syringe in the applicant’s trash, which had allegedly been used by his diabetic son. The applicant stated that J.C. thereafter started the gossip that he was a drug addict. The trial court concluded that the applicant failed to prove any of his factual statements, which were very serious and damaging to J.C.’s reputation. The Constitutional Court balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against J.C.’s reputation relying on the Court’s case-law. The majority held that the applicant’s statement had been facts, the veracity of which he had failed to prove. The fact that other newspaper articles concerning similar accusations about J.C. had been published at around the same time did not allow the applicant to simply rely on such circumstances without verifying the sources of that information. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 14 October 2021. The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, about a violation of his right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?