| Applicant name | KAJGANIĆ |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Serbia |
| Application no. | 27958/16 |
| Date | 08/10/2024 |
| Judges | Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Tim Eicke, Branko Lubarda, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Fair balance |
| Type of privacy | Private life; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Reputation; press |
| Facts of the case | The case primarily concerns the applicant’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant complained, in particular, that the domestic authorities had failed to protect her right to reputation against defamatory statements made by a journalist. The case also concerns the length of the same proceedings and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention respectively. |
| Analysis | The article in question written by Y alleged that the applicant, who is a lawyer, had arranged for her client X to be granted the status of a cooperating witness in criminal proceedings relating to the assassination of the Prime Minister, in exchange for giving false testimony. (i) Contribution to a debate of general interest: The Court observes that in the present case the domestic courts found that the information in question related to a matter of public interest, thus explicitly accepting that the published information contributed to a public debate. (ii) How well known the person concerned is and what the subject of the report is: The Court notes that the domestic courts found that the applicant was not a public figure, but that as the legal representative of one of the accused in high-profile criminal proceedings she had become known to the public and that therefore it could not be said that she was an ordinary private individual either. (iii) Conduct of the person concerned prior to the publication of the article: The Court of Appeal also found that the information in question did not divulge any private details, but focused on events that could affect the course of criminal proceedings and dealt with matters of public interest. |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, violation of Article 6 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,100 (two thousand one hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; |
| Documents | Judgment |