Serbia / The Misdemeanor Court in Belgrade / 114 Pr. 19357/22

Country

Serbia

Title

Serbia / The Misdemeanor Court in Belgrade / 114 Pr. 19357/22

View full Case

Year

2022

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Monday, December 26, 2022

Incident(s) concerned/related

Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

The Misdemeanor Court in Belgrade (Prekršajni sud u Beogradu)

Key facts of the case

The NGO Youth Initiative for Human Rights (YIHR) filed a complaint with the public prosecutor and misdeamenor court against a group of sport fans for hate speech in violation of the law prohibiting neofascist manifestations. Ahead of a water polo game, the group of sport fans gathered in Belgrade city center and sang “Ratko Mladic is a Serbian hero” thus praising a perpetrator of genocide against Bosnian Muslims. The group moved to the sport hall and held a banner “Shiptars, Croats, and Bosniaks are not our brothers” in protest against the water polo club's coach, a Croat from Montenegro. The YIHR could not name the perpetrators, but corroborated the complaint with their photos and video recordings. The Misdemeanor Court in Belgrade declared the complaint against unknown perpetrators inadmissible. The YIHR appealed arguing that the authorities failed to conduct effective investigation and sanction hate speech.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The court declared the complaint inadmissible as it was as “incomplete.” The court stated that the complaint did not contain any information about perpetrators’ identity and that the court could not try unknown perpetrators pursuant to Article 181 (1) (3) of the Misdemeanor Act.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The key issue was whether the complainant bore the burden of proof concerning perpetrators’ identity or it was court’s duty to establish their identity based on submitted evidence, such as photos and video recordings. The complainant argued that private actors lack authority to seek and collect personal data and that state authorities bear a duty to conduct effective investigation.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The trial court declared the complaint inadmissible. The YIHR appealed to the Misdemeanor Court of Appeal in Belgrade.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

“ Како поднети захтев није сачињен у складу са чланом 181 став 1 тачка 3 Закона о прекршајима јер исти није садржао ниједан податак о окривљенима (…) то је суд својим дописом (…) наложио подносиоцу захтева да изврши допуну захтева. Подносилац захтева (…) није доставио ниједан од тражених података (…) те сагласно томе није поступио по налогу суда (…). Стр. 1. “Since the filed complaint is not aligned with Article 1 para. 1 (3) of the Misdemeanor Act because it did not contain any personal data of the accused group (…) the court has ordered the complainant to corroborate the complaint. The complainant (…) did not submit any of the requested data (…) and, therefore, did not comply with the court’s order. p. 1.

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.