Backovic v. Serbia (number 2)

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 11. Marta 2025. brought, and 8. April announced the verdict in the case in the same yearBackovic against Serbia (No. 2), No. 47600/17.

The verdict isdonelo seven-membered larger.

Circumstances Case

The District Court in Sombor is 13. October 2008. He stated that the applicant and more fifteen persons expired the mandate of the Municipal Assembly of Sombor.

The Constitutional Court is 29. September 2011. found that the judgment of the District Court in Sombor is contrary to the election rights of the applicant and other persons.

The Administrative Court in Novi Sad is 18. November 2011. passed the verdict He confirmed the applicant and six other persons confirmed by the councilor term.

The applicant was then 27. January 2012. In his and the behalf of six other persons, as a lawyer and joint proxy, submitted a proposal for the execution of the Administrative Court.

The Basic Court in Sombor is 21. February 2012. He refused a proposal for execution, claiming that the judgment of the Administrative Court was not an executive in terms of the Law on Executive Procedure.

The applicant filed an objection to the decision of the Basic Court in Sombor, in which he noted that the court did not implement, ie that it has misqueathed the relevant provisions of the Law on Executive Procedure. The reasoning of the solution was characterized as the "counter" interpretation of the Executive Procedure, which is based not only on "pre-war" experiences and law practices that are misleading and which except for the legislative level should also change "in personnel." The applicant also stated that this effect of the Court causes "catastrophic consequences", and in terms of judges of the Executive Court, "legal geniuses", "legal bomades", referring to their "ingenuity" in solving cases.

Dana 7. March 2012. The Basic Court in Subotica has passed a decision proposing the applicant in the amount of 100,000 dinars due to contempt of court.

According to the applicant on the Solenary Course, the Basic Court in Sombor (Judicial Unit in Apatin) is 4. September 2012. The amount of the penalty reduced to 50,000 dinars.

The applicant stated the constitutional court against the constitutional court, among other things, in addition to rest, the constitutional complaint was requested by the establishment of the violation of the right to freedom of expression and the fair trial.

The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint, claiming that the relevant courts in the Applicant provided clearly, sufficiently and constitutionally acceptable explanation for their decisions, which was not arbitrary or disrelded.

Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures

The applicant filed a representation of the Court 21. June 2017. years.

In the representations, he complained about the violation of freedom of expression from Article 10 of the Conventionfor the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), due to the imposition of a fine regarding its statements in court proceedings.

Decision Court

The Court assessed that the imposition of a fine of the applicant was interfering to his right to freedom of expression.

Furthermore, the Court stated that the legal basis in the Constitution and the Law on Executive Procedure and that weighed the legitimate goal of keeping the authority of the judiciary.

Examining whether the applicant's right in the right in democratic society, the Court pointed out that the applicant's comments, as part of the internal communication between the applicant, were not intended for the general public. However, the Court also found that he could clearly see that he did not dispute the first instance decision, but he said about unprofessionalism and the lack of knowledge and judges of the court and judge, which undoubtedly intended to belittle the Court.

The Court found that the decision on fine was the subject of effective court review, as other judges confirmed by other judges within the second instance, whose reasoning eventually accepted the Constitutional Court.

The Court found that a fine was at the lower minimum of the applicable scale and did not have consequences for the right of the applicant.

Finally, the Court concluded that the reasons for the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient to justify the interference, that the fine was not a disproportionate goal that weighed and that the interference may be reasonably considered necessary in democratic society.

Consequently, the Court found that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

In Common Extracted Opinion Judge Hüseynov and Pavli

JudgesHüseynov andPaul They presented that the applicant's comments, though sharply formulated and sometimes sarcastic, did not cross the limits of allowed criticism of a lawyer who defends the legal interests of his clients.

In their opinion, they were especially referred to that comments were not intended for the general public, the absence of exclusive intention to insult the judge in question and to the oriction of the critique of the legal validity of the lower court. They also pointed out that the applicant was a local self-government officer who was not able to perform his position for a long period of time, despite the judgments of the Constitutional Court and the Court General, which was favorable for the applicant.

In accordance with the above, judgesHüseynov andPaul They occupied the attitude to find a violation of Article 10. The Convention would be more appropriate in the given case, and more consistent with the newer court practice of contempt of court regarding lawyer statements in formal procedural submissions.