30 May No violation of the rights of the former president of Croatia in the process against him due to the defamation of the lawyer

In the case of Mesić v. Croatia (application no. 19362/18, 05.05.2022) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention.

The case concerned civil proceedings for defamation in which the applicant – a former President of Croatia – had been ordered by the Croatian courts to pay the equivalent of 6,660 euros (EUR) to a specialist lawyer of Croatian origin practising in France, for having tarnished his reputation. In 2006 Ivan Jurašinović, a Croatian lawyer who was practicing in Angers (France) at the time, lodged a criminal complaint on behalf of one of his clients against 11 Croatian nationals, including Mr Mesić, in respect of two counts of attempted murder and one count of attempted extortion by a criminal organisation. Mr Mesić was accused as being an accomplice. According to Mr Jurašinović’s client, the latter had financed Mr Mesić’s election campaign in 2000. Articles connecting the then President’s name to the criminal complaint appeared on the websites of two daily newspapers in Croatia, referring to him as a “sort of political patron of the person who ordered the murder.” The then President, when asked to comment by journalists at a televised press conference, stated that, when next in Zagreb, Mr Jurašinović should go to a certain psychiatric hospital where he and others like him could receive effective treatment. The statement was reported on the President of Croatia’s official website and by various media outlets. Mr Jurašinović then instituted civil proceedings for defamation in Croatia, complaining that Mr Mesić had used his position as President of Croatia and the related media attention to sully his honour and reputation and damage his professional and moral credibility.

Court noted that when Mr Mesić had remarked that Mr Jurašinović needed psychiatric treatment, he had been the State President, and his comment had been widely reported by various media outlets. Therefore, regardless of whether that statement should have been understood literally (as the domestic courts held) or metaphorically (as Mr Mesić submitted), the Court accepted that it had not only been capable of tarnishing Mr Jurašinović’s reputation, but also of being detrimental to him in both his professional and social life. At the same time, in the Court’s view, the alleged involvement of a State President in an attempted murder and/or his possible links with organised crime is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. Mr Mesić had had a right to reply to such an accusation and to defend himself, which he had done first by making certain factual statements denying any connection with the person associated with organised crime. Nevertheless, he had gone a step further and had attempted to discredit Mr Jurašinović as a person to be trusted by making an offensive statement using belittling and impertinent terms, which had not been necessary.Such statements made by Mr Mesić had not only been detrimental to the lawyer’s reputation but had also been capable of having a “chilling”, dissuasive effect on the exercise of his professional duties. Therefore, the awarding of damages had been an appropriate sanction to neutralise that effect and proportionate to the aim of protecting the lawyer’s reputation.

Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and had failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Reference from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights