Croatia/County Court in Varaždin/Gž-779/2023-4

Country

Croatia

Title

Croatia/County Court in Varaždin/Gž-779/2023-4

View full case

Year

2023

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Incident(s) concerned/related

Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Županijski sud u Varaždinu (County Court in Varaždin)

Key facts of the case

The case involved a defamation claim by Dr. Z.H. against journalist A.T. for an article in the Serbian magazine N., later shared online, containing offensive remarks. The Municipal Court awarded the plaintiff €1,990.84 for non-material damage and ordered reimbursement of legal costs. The defendant appealed, disputing the violation of rights, the assessment of public interest, and the proportionality of awarded damages.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Varaždin County Court upheld the lower court’s ruling on damages, stating that the defendant’s expressions, though part of public commentary, exceeded the limits of freedom of expression by using ad hominem insults. Applying ECtHR criteria from the Axel Springer v. Germany case, the court found the statements lacked public interest contribution and primarily aimed to demean. It partially reduced awarded legal costs, recognising proportionality in litigation success but affirmed the damages due to the nature and impact of the statements.

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 the boundary between satirical criticism and defamatory insult. The court emphasised that public figures must tolerate criticism but not extreme personal insults that violate dignity and honor, reaffirming the balancing test from the ECtHR Axel Springer v. Germany case.

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

The defendant was ordered to pay €1,990.84 for non-material damages and €1,185.43 for partial legal costs. The case sets a precedent for limits on freedom of expression in political commentary, highlighting that personal attacks are not protected when they exceed the boundaries of legitimate public debate.

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

"(…) tuženikov ekstremno netolerantan tekst nije spojiv s interesima koji opravdavaju slobodu izražavanja, te da je njegova minimalna društvena vrijednost daleko manja od suprotstavljenog privatnog interesa usmjerenog zaštiti osobne časti." "(…) the defendant’s extremely intolerant text is incompatible with interests that justify freedom of expression, and its minimal social value is far outweighed by the opposing private interest of protecting personal dignity."

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.