PESIC against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 25. issued on November 13, 2025, and on January 13, 2026, announced the verdict in the case Pesic against Serbia, number 4545/21.

The verdict was unanimousbrought More.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicant is a former politician and a long-time political activist.

On May 13, 2016, on the Internet portal of the public newspaper "Peščanik", she published an article entitled "Salination", which dealt with the events in Hercegovačka Street in Savamala, during the night between April 24 and 25, 2016. In that text, the applicant stated, among other things, that: "only the stupidity of the Minister of Police N.S. is unsurpassed and unpredictable. Until now, we have not discovered why he was assigned the role of being the most stupid...".

Because of these allegations, N.S. on July 27, 2016, he filed a lawsuit with the High Court in Belgrade, with a request to compensate him with 200,000 dinars in the name of non-material damages due to mental pain due to injury to his honor and reputation. In addition to the applicant, the citizens' association "Peščanik", as well as its chief and responsible editor S.L., are also defendants. and S.V.

On July 10, 2018, the High Court in Belgrade passed the verdict P3. 313/2016 which adopted the claim. On October 17, 2018, the Court of Appeal in Belgrade ruled Gž3. 217/2018, amended the first-instance judgment by partially rejecting the claim and reducing the amount of non-material damage to 150,000 dinars.

Then, on December 5, 2018, the applicant submitted a review to the Supreme (Cassation) Court, and on December 20, 2018, a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court, complaining about the violation of freedom of opinion and expression, the violation of the right to a fair trial, as well as the violation of the right to a legal remedy.

The Supreme Court of Cassation decided Rev. 839/2019 of March 21, 2019, rejected the applicant's review as impermissible. Also, with the same decision, the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the joint review of the other defendants. The applicant also filed a constitutional appeal against this decision and requested a merger with the previous procedure. The other defendants also filed a constitutional complaint.

By decision Už-14608/2018 of June 4, 2020, the Constitutional Court rejected both of the applicant's constitutional appeals, judging that her statements cannot be considered as constitutional reasons for arguing the claims of a violation of the Constitution, but that the Constitutional Court, as a court of instance, should once again assess the legality of the contested acts.

On February 8, 2024, the Constitutional Court, by decision Už-8174/2019, adopted the constitutional appeal of the other defendants, annulled the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation Rev. 839/2019 of March 21, 2019, finding that their right to a fair trial and to a legal remedy was violated and ordered that the Supreme Court decide again on the declared revision of the defendants. Paragraph 3 of the sentence of the decision of the Constitutional Court stipulates that this decision has legal effect also against the applicant "who did not file a constitutional appeal".

The Supreme Court did not decide on the audits of the applicant and the other defendants until the day of the Court's verdict.

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on December 15, 2020.

Referring to Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), the applicant claimed that the compensation awarded against her in the civil proceedings was unjustified, claiming that both the first and second instance courts by adopting the claim of N.S. interfered with her right to freedom of expression, considering that criticism of a public official can be presented in a rude and derisive manner, and that he is obliged to tolerate such criticism.

Also, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial, claiming thata) the civil proceedings were unfair, because the first-instance court did not allow her to ask certain questions to the prosecutor N.S. which had to do with the event that was the reason for writing the disputed text with the explanation that its questions are political and as such superfluous,b) the decision of the Constitutional Court rejecting her constitutional appeal was "inadequately explained".

Finally, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to access the court, because the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected her review as impermissible.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• Article 10 of the Convention

The court rejected the Government's objections that the applicant lost her "victim status" after the adoption of the Constitutional Court's decision following the constitutional appeal of the Association "Peščanik" and the main and responsible editors of that Association, who were also sued in the initial proceedings, and expressly recognized that the Supreme (Cassation) Court violated the applicant's right to a fair trial by rejecting the review. This is due to the fact that the Constitutional Court, in its decision, neither explicitly nor in its substance, recognized the violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression.

The Court also rejected the Government's objection that the applicant did not suffer significant damage, judging that regardless of the relatively low monetary amounts referred to by the Government, the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention in this case raises an "important question of principle", because her role as a regular columnist for the website of the Association "Peščanik" highlights the wider context of the violation, which must be evaluated in the context of freedom of the media and in this particular case represents a "question of principle".

Evaluating on the merits whether there was a violation of the applicant's freedom of expression, the Court noted that there was no dispute between the parties that the adoption of a civil judgment ordering the applicant to pay compensation to the plaintiff interfered with her right to freedom of expression, that the interference was prescribed by law - the Law on Obligations and that the interference aimed at a legitimate goal - protecting the reputation or rights of others.

When assessing whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court recalled that the limitation of a person's right to freedom of expression is to a certain extent necessary to protect the right of another person from Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life), and that the state should find a way to establish a fair balance between two opposing values: freedom of expression on the one hand and respect for private and family life on the other.

In the specific case, the Court found that the applicant's criticism was directed against N.S., the then Minister of the Interior, a public figure and a professional politician whose boundaries of criticism are wider than would be the case if it were a non-public figure. The court therefore concluded that N.S. by entering politics, he consciously exposed his every word and deed to scrutiny and public criticism.

Furthermore, the Court noted that  the words "stupid", "the stupidest" and "unsurpassed and unpredictable... stupidity" extracted from different parts of the article to give the impression of the applicant's intention to insult N.S., and that the civil courts characterized these expressions as insults.

Examining the contested article as a whole, the Court recalled that journalistic freedom allows certain exaggeration, provocation or intemperate statements and assessed that the contested statements of the plinth, presented in a provocative and scathing manner, represented a subjective assessment of the actions and statements of N.S., i.e. they were value judgments and not statements of facts.

Also, the Court assessed that the disputed statements, when viewed in the context of the article, represented harsh criticism of the response of the Minister of Police to the demolitions that took place in the center of Belgrade (including "unidentified perpetrators who illegally deprived several persons present in the area of ​​their freedom, releasing them only when the demolition was completed" and "those persons contacted the police, who did not react or appear on the scene".

Bearing in mind that at that time there was an intense public debate about the responsibility for the demolitions in Savamala and the inadequate reactions of the competent authorities, the Court assessed that the applicant's statements were part of a wider discourse on issues of public interest, where few restrictions are acceptable under Article 10 of the Convention.

According to the Court's assessment, the applicant's statements were not intended to "recklessly denigrate", i.e. insult N.S., but were carefully placed in the context of the article. More precisely, the applicant clearly explained why, in her opinion, the way the police acted and the way of explaining the apparent lack of police reaction by N.S. they deserve such an answer.

Finally, the Court found that the domestic courts failed to base their decisions on an "acceptable assessment of the relevant facts" and to provide "relevant and sufficient reasons".

The Court concluded that the domestic courts failed to establish a fair balance between the applicant's freedom of expression and the rights and interests of the N.S., to apply standards that are consistent with the principles contained in Article 10, to rely on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts and to base their decisions on relevant and sufficient reasons, and that therefore the reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicant's article was therefore not necessary in a democratic society, in the sense of Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Following the above, the Court determined that the applicant's right from Article 10 of the Convention was violated.

• Article 6.  Conventions

Considering the applicant's complaints that her right to access the court was violated because the Supreme (Cassation) Court rejected her review, the Court accepted the Government's objection that the applicant lost her victim status, considering that the Constitutional Court in its decision of March 11, 2024 recognized the said violation and ordered the Supreme Court to reconsider the review of the applicant, especially since the applicant did not ask the Court for any compensation for damages for this alleged violation. The court could not continue examining the petition out of respect for human rights, because that condition refers to the existence of significant damage, and not to the status of the victim.

Accordingly, in this part, the Court rejected the petition of the applicant asratione personae incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.

FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)

The applicant did not ask for any monetary compensation for damages, and the Court assessed that there was no reason to award it to her.