ISKRENOVIĆ v. Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is19. May 2026. brought, a16. published the judgment in the case in June of the same year Iskrenović v. Serbia, number 39427/23.
The verdict was unanimousbrought by the Council.
The case refers to the applicant's conviction in misdemeanor proceedings for insulting the police, during riots caused by dissatisfaction with restrictive measures during the pandemicCOVID - 19. The court found a violation of the rights submittedoca to a fair trial from Article 6, para. 1 and 3. (d) of the Convention, because the domestic courts did not adequately consider the relevance of the evidence proposed by the applicant, nor did they provide sufficient reasoning for refusing to produce and obtain it. The court did not consider the applicant's complaints regarding the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, considering that the main issues have been sufficiently considered. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), Mr. Jovan Iskrenović, is a citizen of the Republic of Serbia and lives in Belgrade. On July 11, 2020, in the evening hours, the applicant was arrested in the center of Belgrade and deprived of his liberty, in the context of protests against the measures adopted to suppress the pandemic caused by the virusCOVID - 19. At that time, a ban on public gatherings and a curfew was in force.
The following day, July 12, 2020, the applicant was found liable in misdemeanor proceedings for insulting police officers. The misdemeanor court in Belgrade heard the applicant and the police officer who made the arrest, whose allegations were contradictory. The police officer stated that the applicant hurled a series of insults and curses at him and his colleague as he passed them on the street, and that he then ran away despite their orders to stop.
The applicant disputed this version of events, and stated that the police officers knocked him to the ground and that he never insulted them. According to him, he was informed that he was being deprived of his liberty for wearing a maskV for Vendetta, that is, Anonymous masks, which are often used as a symbol of protest and anti-establishment movements.
The misdemeanor appellate court rejected the applicant's appeal with the judgment Prž. 18631/20 of September 21, 2020, and the constitutional appeal of the applicant was rejected by the decision of the Constitutional Court Už-10656/2020 of May 23, 2023.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on October 23, 2023.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, para. 1 and 3 of the Convention stating that the proceedings against him were not fair due to the refusal of the courts to hear a witness or obtain video evidence that he believed would support his version of events and prove his innocence. He also complained about the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention regarding the amount of the fine imposed on him (120,000 dinars).
THE DECISION THE COURT
First of all, the Court did not accept the Government's argument that the context of the case - social unrest - justified a more lenient approach when assessing compliance with the requirements of equality of the parties in the sense of Article 6 of the Convention.
Taking into account the conflicting versions of events, the Court concluded that the applicant's claims were neither groundless nor malicious in themselves. Namely, the testimony of the witness and the videos from the security cameras could shed light on the question of whether the applicant was close enough to the police officers to offend them.
On the other hand, according to the Court's assessment, the domestic courts did not provide valid reasons for rejecting the applicant's request. They did not conduct any substantive evaluation of the evidence presented. They based their explanation on assumptions - that the applicant was walking alone, that he was near police officers and that the witness could not hear the alleged verbal conflict.
The court concluded that declaring the applicant responsible was essentially based on the statement of the police officer who made the arrest, and that the defense was prevented from effectively contesting the accusation. The courts did not adequately consider the relevance of the proposed evidence, nor did they provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the request for their acquisition and examination, which violated the overall fairness of the proceedings.
Following the above, the Court determined that the applicant's rights from Article 6, para. 1 and 3. (d) of the Convention.
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Having found that the main issues have been sufficiently considered as part of determining the violation of Article 6, para. 1 and 3. (d) of the Convention, the Court assessed that it is not necessary to additionally consider the applicant's complaints regarding the violation of the right to property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant the amount of 3,600 euros in the name of non-material damages.