Published on 14 March 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 51775/21
Ivana RASPOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 15 October 2021
communicated on 22 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the imposition of a fine on the applicant for contempt of court. On 9 July 2019 the applicant was fined in the amount of 3,000 Croatian kunas (HRK – approximately 400 euros [EUR]) by judge M.P., of the Zadar Municipal Court, for statements she had made as an advocate in civil proceeding in her appeal against that court’s judgment. In that appeal she criticised the court for rejecting the claim she had lodged on behalf of her client after an alleged prolonged inactivity of judge M.P. (of whom she had previously complained) and accused the latter of “obviously not feeling like doing his job” and the court of “not reading well and not seeing the indication on the statement of claim”.
In her appeal against the decision imposing the fine, she pointed out that she had criticised the work of the judge who subsequently fined her. She also insisted that, inter alia, the judge was “not doing his job”; “was doing absolutely nothing at this court especially in cases in which she [was] the representative”; and “had abused his authority” in the exercise of his office.
On 26 July 2019 judge M.P. fined the applicant for contempt of court again, this time for the remarks she had made in the appeal against the decision of 9 July 2019. The second fine amounted to HRK 10,000. She lodged an appeal. Both appeals against the fines were dismissed by the Osijek County Court, which however reduced the second fine to HRK 4,000 (approximately EUR 530). The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint concerning the above two fines.
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the fines imposed on her interfered with her freedom of expression, were not based on law, had no legitimate aim and were not necessary. She also alleges that she expressed criticism of the work of the judge in question but had no intention to offend him, and that the fines had a chilling effect on her.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?
In particular, were the decisions of 9 July 2019 and of 26 July 2019 (as upheld on appeal) prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? Was the domestic courts’ assessment of the need to impose the fines on the applicant, on each of the two occasions, in conformity with the principles developed in the Court’s case-law (see Radobuljac v. Croatia, no. 51000/11, §§ 56 -71, 28 June 2016, and Čeferin v. Slovenia, no. 40975/08, §§ 44-68, 16 January 2018)?