Published on 15 December 2025
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 9471/24
Anna-Maria GETOŠ KALAC
against Croatia
lodged on 19 March 2024
communicated on 25 November 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a decision issued by the Croatian Science Foundation (hereinafter: “the Foundation”) finding that the applicant had violated scientific integrity following her launching of a survey concerning the functioning of the Foundation.
The applicant is a law professor, who in 2017 obtained a grant from the Foundation for a project concerning violence. On 2 December 2019 she launched a survey on cyber harassment by the Foundation itself among the heads of projects co-funded by the Foundation. The results of that survey, which were unfavourable to the Foundation, were made public shortly afterwards, while the Foundation discredited them by alleging that the survey had not been part of the applicant’s scientific project.
On 23 December 2019 the Foundation’s Committee for Scientific Integrity issued an opinion that the applicant had violated the relevant ethical rules and committed a minor violation of scientific integrity by a number of actions and communications with the Foundation members. On 10 January 2020 the Foundation’s Management Board accepted the Committee’s opinion, established that the applicant had committed a minor violation of scientific integrity and decided to make an official visit to reassess the project. The applicant was informed of this decision several days later, which according to her was the first time she had learned about the fact that any sort of procedure was being conducted against her. It would also appear that the said official visit never took place.
On 12 February 2020 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint claiming that the Foundation’s opinion violated, inter alia, her right to academic freedom, her right to a fair trial and her reputation. On 14 November 2023 the Constitutional Court declared her complaint inadmissible finding that the Foundation’s opinion was not amenable to constitutional review (decision served on 24 November 2023).
The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, about the breach of her right to freedom of expression, in particular her academic freedom, claiming that she had been sanctioned by the Foundation for launching a survey concerning its work. She also complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about a breach of her right to reputation in that the Foundation’s opinion and decision, which had been widely reported in the media, portrayed her as an unethical person.
Finally, the applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and about the lack of adversarial proceedings, because she was never informed that any proceedings were pending against her nor was she able to submit her counter‑arguments. She also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, about the fact that she had no effective remedy since her constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible, contrary to the Constitutional Court’s approach in a previous similar case where it had examined the merits of a similar constitutional complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression by the Foundation’s opinion and decision, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Kula v. Turkey, no. 20233/06, §§ 36-53, 19 June 2018)?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, in particular her reputation, by the Foundation’s opinion, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (cf. Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012, and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 112, 25 September 2018)?
3. (a) Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 39, ECHR 2009)?
(b) If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, §§ 112-16, 15 March 2018)?
(c) Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the adversarial principle respected in her case (cf. Janáček v. the Czech Republic, no. 9634/17, § 46, 2 February 2023)?
(d) Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 108-10, 16 March 2010)?