Published on 13 December 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 27958/16 Biljana KAJGANIĆ against Serbia lodged on 6 May 2016 communicated on 23 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s right to protection of her reputation, length of civil proceedings, and a lack of an effective domestic remedy for these complaints.

The applicant, who is a lawyer, was representing X in a high-profile criminal proceedings. On 9 September 2004 a journalist Y wrote an article claiming that there was a transcript of the applicant’s telephone conversation with X, in which she had said that she had ensured for X a status of a protected witness with “her old buddies” who were “the two most powerful men in the country” in exchange for X’s particular testimony in the proceedings, and that he should not worry about the testimony in question not being true.

On 28 October 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for defamation against Y. After a remittal, the first-instance court ruled partly in the applicant’s favour. On 19 June 2012 the second-instance court held a hearing, and overturned the first-instance judgment, ruling against the applicant. On 9 November 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as regards her right to protection of her reputation, and rejected it as regards the length of the proceedings.

The applicant complains: (a) that the courts failed to protect her reputation against a defamation by Y; (b) about the length of the civil proceedings; and (c) about a lack of an effective domestic remedy for these complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, more specifically her right to protection of reputation, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 90-93, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017)?

2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII)?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 6 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Stevanović v. Serbia , no. 26642/05, §§ 65-66, 9 October 2007, and Peck v. the United Kingdom , no. 44647/98, § 99, ECHR 2003 ‑ I)?