CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20441/24 Darko BEŠTEK against Croatia lodged on 12 July 2024 communicated on 24 March 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns a statement made by a member of the Croatian Parliament during a public parliamentary session, suggesting that the applicant, a disabled war veteran, managed to have his disability established by the domestic authorities to a greater degree than it actually was. The session was broadcasted live, and its recording remained available on the Parliament’s website. The applicant complains that the statement in question was untrue and that, by dismissing his civil action for damages, the domestic courts failed to protect his reputation in violation of his right to respect for his private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the decision of the domestic courts to dismiss the applicant’s civil action for damages in compliance with the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to ensure effective respect for his private life, notably his right to respect for his reputation?   In particular, did those courts strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and the right to freedom of expression of the member of the Croatian Parliament guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? In that context, did the domestic courts convincingly explain why the protection of the freedom of expression of the member of the Croatian Parliament outweighed the applicant’s right to respect for his reputation (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no.   39954/08, §§ 83-95, 7   February 2012; Jishkariani v. Georgia , no.   18925/09, §§ 41-46, 20   September 2018, and Mesić v. Croatia , no.   19362/18, §§ 91-93, 5 May 2022)?