Reclamantul, \u010cedomir Backovi\u0107, avocat \u0219i fost consilier local \u00een Sombor (Serbia), a fost amendat pentru insult\u0103 adus\u0103 instan\u021bei, \u00een cadrul unei proceduri de contencios administrativ privind mandatul s\u0103u \u0219i al altor consilieri municipali.<\/p>\n
Dup\u0103 ce instan\u021bele au refuzat s\u0103-i recunoasc\u0103 calitatea de consilier, dl Backovi\u0107 a formulat apeluri \u0219i observa\u021bii \u00een care:<\/p>\n
– calificat hot\u0103r\u00e2rile ca fiind rezultatul unei \u201einterpreta\u0306ri birocratice\u201d a legii,<\/p>\n
– numit decizia \u201eo absurditate suprem\u0103\u201d,<\/p>\n
– afirmat c\u0103 aceasta ar fi fost redactat\u0103 \u201edin ignoran\u021b\u0103 sau din rea-credin\u021b\u0103\u201d,<\/p>\n
– descris judec\u0103torii ca fiind \u201egigan\u021bi ai dreptului\u201d \u0219i \u201egenii ale dreptului\u201d, \u00eentr-un ton ironic evident.<\/p>\n
Pentru aceste afirma\u021bii a fost sanc\u021bionat cu o amend\u0103 de 100.000 RSD (aproximativ 910 euro la acea dat\u0103), redus\u0103 ulterior la 50.000 RSD de o instan\u021b\u0103 superioar\u0103. Reclamantul a epuizat c\u0103ile de atac interne \u0219i a sesizat Curtea de la Strasbourg, invoc\u00e2nd art 10 din Conven\u021bie. Dl Backovi\u0107 a sus\u021binut c\u0103 afirma\u021biile sale s-au \u00eenscris \u00een limitele unei critici acceptabile \u00eentr-un stat democratic \u0219i c\u0103 sanc\u021biunea i-a \u00eenc\u0103lcat dreptul la liber\u0103 exprimare, \u00een contextul ap\u0103r\u0103rii unor interese legitime \u00eentr-un litigiu juridic.<\/p>\n
Curtea european\u0103 a acceptat c\u0103 a existat o ingerin\u021b\u0103 \u00een libertatea de exprimare, dar a constatat c\u0103 ingerin\u021ba era prev\u0103zut\u0103 de lege, respectiv de dispozi\u021biile constitu\u021bionale \u0219i procedurale din dreptul s\u00e2rb; scopul era legitim \u2013 protejarea autorit\u0103\u021bii \u0219i prestigiului puterii judec\u0103tore\u0219ti; m\u0103sura a fost propor\u021bional\u0103, dat fiind caracterul moderat al amenzii \u0219i natura comentariilor.<\/p>\n
CEDO a subliniat c\u0103 expresiile folosite dep\u0103\u0219eau limitele criticii juridice, av\u00e2nd un caracter personal \u0219i jignitor fa\u021b\u0103 de judec\u0103torul cauzei. De asemenea, a subliniat faptul c\u0103 observa\u021biile aveau o dimensiune sarcastic\u0103 \u0219i batjocoritoare, fiind menite s\u0103 discrediteze profesionalismul magistratului.<\/p>\n
Pentru c\u0103 a fost respectat un echilibru \u00eentre dreptul la liber\u0103 exprimare al avocatului \u0219i nevoia de protec\u021bie a autorit\u0103\u021bii sistemului judiciar, Curtea a concluzionat c\u0103 sanc\u021biunea a fost justificat\u0103 \u0219i propor\u021bionat\u0103 \u015fi nu s-a \u00eenc\u0103lcat articolul 10 din Conven\u021bie.<\/p>\n
Judec\u0103torii H\u00fcseynov \u0219i Pavli au formulat o opinie disident\u0103 comun\u0103, exprim\u00e2nd dezacordul fa\u021b\u0103 de concluzia majoritar\u0103 \u0219i apreciind c\u0103 sanc\u021biunea a avut un efect de descurajare a exprim\u0103rii critice legitime \u00eentr-un context juridic.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
avocat Radu Chiri\u0163\u0103<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Reclamantul, \u010cedomir Backovi\u0107, avocat \u0219i fost consilier local \u00een Sombor (Serbia), a fost amendat pentru insult\u0103 adus\u0103 instan\u021bei, \u00een cadrul unei proceduri de contencios administrativ privind mandatul s\u0103u \u0219i al altor consilieri municipali. Dup\u0103 ce instan\u021bele au refuzat s\u0103-i recunoasc\u0103 calitatea de consilier, dl Backovi\u0107 a formulat apeluri \u0219i observa\u021bii \u00een care: – calificat hot\u0103r\u00e2rile […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[83],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reprezentare-in-fata-cedo"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}