I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in GAŠI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2015-03-19
  • Communication date: 2021-04-20
  • Application number(s): 24738/19
  • Country:   SRB
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 10, 10-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded)
    Remainder inadmissible
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law)
    Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed
    Non-pecuniary damage - award
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.582525
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 10 May 2021 The applicants are journalists and civil sector activists, frequently criticising the Government and the authorities.
In early 2016 they protested against a lack of transparency of two large-scale construction projects in Belgrade, and the changes in the management of Radio-Television of Vojvodina.
In May and June 2016 several pro-Government journalists and media outlets accused the applicants of, inter alia, being foreign agents who wanted to incite separatism and disintegration of the State, radicalise the protests, provoke conflicts with police and create chaos in Serbia, and that they should be criminally prosecuted for their subversive activities.
One of the articles’ headlines also implied that the then Prime Minister (now President) would be killed, and the article itself contained photographs of the applicants.
The applicants filed a criminal complaint for racial and other discrimination, and breach of equality, against the individuals making such allegations but the State Prosecution and the Appellate State Prosecution rejected it.
On 31 October 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected their constitutional appeal, which decision was served on them between 1 and 5 November 2018.
The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that the State has not discharged its positive obligation to protect them from the threats and media campaign against them, which intimidated and dissuaded them to continue expressing their opinion on public matters.

Judgment