Communicated on 23 September 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 36908/13
Nada ŠTEFANAC
against Croatia
lodged on 21 May 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nada Štefanac, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Slavonski Brod. She is represented before the Court by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In May 2007 the applicant’s daughter and son-in-law died in a car accident. The couple’s daughter N.G., who was a five-month-old baby at the time, was also injured in the accident.
Following the death of her parents, a family dispute arose over where N.G. should live and with whom she should have contact. Paternal and maternal family members took up opposing sides. The dispute resulted in several sets of administrative and judicial proceedings before the relevant authorities, and the case attracted significant media coverage.
In the context of such media interest, on 10 April 2008 a TV show (Provjereno), which was broadcast on a private television channel with national coverage, discussed the case in detail. During the show, an official from the social services office which was involved in the matter commented on the case, and N.G.’s name was also mentioned.
In April 2010 the applicant, together with her other daughter, D.Đ., took part in a TV show (Proces) on the national television channel (HRT), and spoke about her dissatisfaction at how the case concerning her granddaughter was being handled. At one point during her interview the applicant showed a document, and the TV camera was able to capture N.G.’s name as it appeared on the document.
Following the broadcasting of the TV show, one of N.G.’s paternal family members lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and D.Đ., alleging that they had breached the confidentiality of the administrative proceedings concerning the dispute over where N.G. should live, in particular by disclosing N.G.’s full identity.
On 31 August 2011 the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zlataru) indicted the applicant and D.Đ. on charges of breaching the confidentiality of the administrative proceedings, in relation to the applicant’s disclosure of N.G.’s identity in the Proces TV show.
The case was forwarded to the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) for trial.
During the proceedings, the applicant argued that she had not intended to disclose N.G.’s identity, and that during the interview she had simply shown various documents, from which the TV camera had captured N.G.’s name. The applicant stressed that the only reason for her participation in the TV show was to express her dissatisfaction at the inordinate length of the administrative proceedings concerning the dispute over where her granddaughter should live. She also contended that N.G.’s name and the details of the case had already been disclosed in the media, and that she did not know that it was prohibited to talk about the case, given that an official from the social services office concerned had already done the same thing on another TV show.
The defence asked the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court to examine the journalists who had prepared the Proces TV show about the circumstances in which the applicant had given her interview and disclosed N.G.’s name.
On 10 July 2012, dismissing all the evidence presented by the defence and relying on the documents available in the case file, the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. It held that it was obvious from the available evidence that the applicant had participated in a TV show, spoken about the case and shown a document which contained N.G.’s name. In doing so, she had breached the confidentiality of the administrative proceedings concerning the dispute over where N.G. should live.
The applicant challenged that judgment before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), and on 8 January 2013 the Zagreb County Court dismissed her appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the findings of the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining, inter alia, of a breach of her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.
On 25 April 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 25 April 2013.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article 10 of the Convention about her criminal conviction for breach of the confidentiality of administrative proceedings, and the lack of fairness of the relevant criminal proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses and the examination of evidence on her behalf under the same conditions as evidence against her, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy