Communicated on 18 December 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 19728/08 Divna TORDAJ against Serbia lodged on 19 April 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Divna Tordaj , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Belgrade . Sh e is represented before the Court by Ms B. Zarić , a lawyer practising in Belgrade .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applican t, may be summarised as follows:

On 13 November 2003 the applicant started a private prosecution against P.A. for defamation claiming that P.A. had falsely accused her of extortion and nuisance in his letter to the authorities of Municipality of Zvezdara ( Op Å¡tina Zvezdara , one of the Belgrade municipalities) of 18 July 2003. On 25 February 2004 the Belgrade Municipal Court ordered the applicant to submit some additional information, which she did on 13 April 2004.

On 9 March 2006 the applicant applied to the criminal court to speed-up the proceedings in view of the short limitation period in respect of defamation. On 14 March 2006 the criminal court responded that the proceedings would become statute-barred in August 2007 and that it would take all necessary measures to prevent that.

On 29 March 2007 the Municipal Court found the defendant guilty of defamation. The Belgrade District Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial on 28 June 2007.

On 30 August 2007 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings as statute-barred. The District Court upheld that decision on 24 October 2007.

B. Relevant domestic law

In the present case, the domestic courts applied the Criminal Code 2005 ( Krivični zakonik ; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia nos. 85/05, 88/05, 107/05, 72/09 and 111/09), although the alleged defamation took place in 2003, since the provisions of that Code were more lenient for the defendant in respect of the punishment . According to Article 104 of the Code, the criminal prosecution for defamation is time-barred after expiry of four years from the commission of this offence.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article s 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that it became impossible for her to obtain a decision on her claim in criminal proceedings because of the negligence of the judicial authorities, which led to the discontinuation of th ose proceedings under the statute of limitations .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is the applicant ’ s complaint compatible ratione materiae with Article 6 of the Convention (see Gorou v. Greece (no. 3) , no. 21845/03, § 21 , 22 June 2006 ) ?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, d id the applicant have a n effective access to a court in respect of her criminal complaint concerning defamation in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention , given that the criminal prosecution became statute-barred ?