Published on 12 December 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 21989/22
Ibrahim HALKIĆ
against Slovenia
lodged on 26 April 2022
communicated on 22 November 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s claim for damages with respect to the publication of his photo and name in relation to the accusation of an online fraud in a widely distributed Slovenian newspaper and its website. His photo appeared on the front page of the respective newspaper and was accompanied by the text: “In Bosnia they have charged the man who allegedly scammed several married Slovenian women. According to our information this is Ibrahim Halkić, who searched for his victims on Facebook.” The main article was titled “Web scammer got [his] name and face”. The applicant alleged in the civil proceedings against the publishing company that he had nothing to do with the accusations, that the journalist had mistaken the identity of the alleged fraudster and that he should have been presumed innocent. The Ljubljana Local Court, which dismissed his claim, found, inter alia, that the applicant failed to adduce any evidence to support his allegation that there existed another Ibrahim Halkić who had allegedly carried out the web fraud; that the applicant failed to prove that he was not the one who had scammed the Slovenian women; and that he failed to prove that no proceedings were pending against him in Bosnia and Hercegovina in relation to the accusations in question. His appeal and motion for leave to appeal on points of law, as well as his constitutional complaint, were dismissed.
The applicant complains, in substance under Article 8, that the aforementioned publication seriously damaged his reputation, with adverse consequences for his everyday life. In his submission, the proceedings which he instituted in this connection disregarded his right to respect for his dignity and privacy.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the dismissal of his claim against the publisher of the newspaper which published the applicant’s photograph and presented him as the (alleged) internet fraudster? In particular, did the domestic courts convincingly explain why the protection of the freedom of expression of the publishing company outweighed the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (as regards the criteria relevant for the balancing exercise between the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 78-95, 7 February 2012; compare also with Vučina v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 58955/13, §§ 34-51, 24 September 2019, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 117, 23 October 2008)?
The Government should in particular address the domestic courts’ reasoning concerning the applicant’s burden of proving that the published information was false, their assessment of the diligence required from the journalist, the status of the applicant as someone who had not been convicted of any criminal offence in relation to the reported events, the public interest in the publication in question and the domestic courts’ assessment of the applicant’s motive in pursuing the civil proceedings.