Hristo KRUSHARSKI
On October 15, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) issued a decision in the case, and on November 7 of the same year Hristo Krušarski against Serbia, number 33805/20.
It's a decisionbroughtthree-member Board.
The case concerns a civil suit for defamation filed by the applicant due to statements made by a local politician at a press conference regarding the applicant's alleged "corrupt business practices". The civil courts ruled in favor of the applicant and awarded him compensation for the non-material damage suffered and ordered that each party bear its own costs of the proceedings. The amount of procedural costs that the applicant had to pay was several times higher than the amount he received in the name of compensation for non-material damages. The applicant complained because he had to pay costs that were higher than the amount awarded to him in the name of compensation for non-material damage, because the practice of domestic courts was uneven in relation to the amount of awarded amounts in the name of non-material damage in comparable cases, because the reasoning of the courts the decision in his case was not adequate and because he remained a victim of the violation of the right to protection of honor and reputation due to the ineffective protection provided to him by the domestic authorities. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant was the general director of the company in the period from 2009 to 2011Trayal Corporation.
On November 28, 2013, at a press conference, a local politician stated that in the company "Trail Corporation" from Kruševac, at the time when the applicant was the general manager, there was a series of abuses in business, as a result of which the company in question was damaged, as and that the applicant participated in certain business machinations.
Believing that his honor and reputation were injured as a result of the untruths, the applicant filed a lawsuit against the local politician in December 2013 in which he demanded monetary compensation for non-material damages in the amount of 300,000 dinars. During the procedure, he determined the requested amount to be 150,000 dinars.
On January 19, 2017, the basic court in Kruševac, in a renewed proceeding, rendered the verdict P. 3600/15by which he partially accepted the applicant's claim, obliged the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of 75,000 dinars with statutory default interest as compensation for non-material damages due to injury to honor and reputation, and decided that each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings.
On August 31, 2017, the High Court in Kruševac ruled that Mrs. 997/17, modified the first-instance verdict by obliging the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of 35,000 dinars with statutory default interest as compensation for non-material damages due to injury to honor and reputation, while confirming the first-instance verdict regarding the costs of the proceedings.
On May 21, 2020, the Constitutional Court issued Decision Už-8077/2017, in which it rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal, finding that the prerequisites established by the Constitution for conducting the proceedings were not met.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on July 21, 2020.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life, rights to effective legal remedy and property rights from art. 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court noted that the domestic courts partially accepted the applicant's claim, considering that his honor and reputation were injured by certain statements of the defendant, and that they awarded him compensation in the name of non-material damages. Also, the Court noted that the decision to have the applicant bear his own costs of the procedure was made because he did not support them with evidence and because his claim was partially accepted.
Following the above, the Court assessed that the protection provided to the applicant at the domestic level was effective and sufficient in terms of the positive obligations of the state, as well as that the decision on costs was reasonable and proportionate, and that the applicant was not deprived of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention .
Also, the Court assessed that neither the rest of the applicant's complaints according to art. 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, do not indicate any violation of the rights and freedoms contained in the Convention or its Protocols.
Therefore, the Court made a decision to reject the applicant's petition as clearly unfounded, in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.