Communicated on 30 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 2782/12 NARODNI LIST D.D . against Croatia lodged on 28 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Narodni list d.d . (hereafter “the applicant company”) , is a joint stock company incorporated under Croatian law which has its registered office in Zadar . It is represented before the Court by Mr V. Škulić , an advocate practising in Zadar .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company , may be summarised as follows.

Few years before the publication of the newspaper article that gave rise to the present application, the investigation judge of the Zadar County Court Mr B.B. issued a warrant to search the applicant company ’ s premises with a view to finding photographs of his colleague Ms S.-K, which the journalists of the applicant company ’ s weekly publication Narodni list had taken in public.

Couple of years later, judge B.B. attended the opening of another newspaper in Zadar and thereby again caught the attention of the journalists of Narodni list .

On 31 October 2008 that weekly published a small article on the page 3 entitled “Judge B. should be put to pillory ( Suca B. treba prikovati na stup sramote )”. The article, featuring a photo of Judge B., reads as follows:

“Judge of the Zadar County Court B.B. came to congratulate [a certain Mr] S. on starting a daily newspaper. Even though that is not allowed under [...] the Code of Judicial Ethics because of potential conflict of interests, B. nevertheless stopped for a drink with his acquaintance from the old times.

B ’ s arrival would have gone unnoticed had this judge not become ‘ famous ’ also outside Croatia ’ s borders by illegally signing the warrant to search [the premises of] Narodni list . On the basis of that approval the herd of policemen raided [the premises of] Narodni list looking for photos of his colleague judge S.-K. That was a precedent unknown in western democracies.

What is B. doing in journalistic circles is known only to the crew around S. In the western world journalists put such judges to pillory.”

It would appear that judge B. asked the newspapers to publish an apology but that it refused to do so.

On 26 November 2008 the judge brought a civil action for defamation against the applicant company before the Zadar Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zadru ) seeking 50,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He argued that the article was an open invitation to lynch him and that it had harmed his reputation in that it called into question his moral and professional integrity by insinuating that he broke the law in the exercise of his duties as a judge.

By a judgment of 10 March 2010 the Municipal Court ruled for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant company to pay him HRK 50,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by tarnishing his reputation as well as HRK 6,005 in costs of proceedings.

On 3 December 2010 the Zadar County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant company and upheld the first-instance judgment which thereby became final.

The applicant company then, on 16 February 2011, lodged a constitutional complaint alleging violations of its freedom of expression and its right to fair procedure, both guaranteed by the Constitution. He also relied on Article 10 of the Convention.

By a decision of 19 October 2011 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant company ’ s constitutional complaint. It held that the freedom of expression was not absolute and could be restricted for the protection of the dignity, reputation and honour of others, which rights were also guaranteed by the Constitution. In particular, the Constitutional Court held that the ordinary courts had correctly applied the relevant substantive law and given sufficient reasons for their judgments.

COMPLAINT

The applicant company complains under Article 10 of the Convention the Zadar Municipal Court ’ s judgment of 10 March 2010 ordering it to pay damages for the injury to judge B. ’ s reputation constituted a violation of its freedom of expression.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant company ’ s freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?