Strasbourg ruled: Croatia violated the lawyer’s right to freedom of expression according to the judge

The Constitutional Court rejected her constitutional complaint, considering that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was proportional to the legitimate goal that was to be achieved, that is, maintaining the authority and respect of the court.

Before the court in Strasbourg, the applicant claimed that her right to freedom of expression was violated by the imposition of monetary fines, and the ECtHR found that the imposed monetary fines represented an interference with the lawyer’s right to freedom of expression, even though they were prescribed by law and aimed at the legitimate goal of protecting the authority of the judiciary.

ECtHR: Courts are not exempt from criticism and public scrutiny

Examining whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”, the ECtHR found that the Croatian courts failed to evaluate the contested statements in their complete context, i.e. that they were given within the framework of the court proceedings in which the lawyer filed an appeal against the verdict rejecting her client’s claim.

Her other allegations were presented in the proceedings related to the imposed monetary penalty and served as a justification for the language she used in the appeal against the verdict. Her statements were therefore part of an internal communication between her as a lawyer and the court of appeals that the general public was not aware of and protected the interests of her client, the ECtHR concluded.

The court reminded that the courts, like all other public institutions, are not exempt from criticism and public scrutiny and that it is necessary to clearly distinguish criticism from insult.

He further determined that the lawyer’s statements, although expressed in a harsh and caustic tone and containing serious criticism of the judge’s work, were aimed at expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct of the proceedings and its duration, and not at insulting the judge, as judged by the Croatian courts.

Considering the amount of the imposed monetary penalties, the ECtHR considers that they cannot be considered proportionate to the legitimate goal of protecting the authority of the judiciary. The fact that the applicant has not yet paid those fines had no influence on the assessment of the case, as the fines were formally imposed on her and are still legally enforceable, announced the office of the Croatian representative before the court in Strasbourg.