FRANCIŠKOVIĆ proti Chorvatsku

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF FRANCIŠKOVIĆ v. CROATIA

(Application no. 1313/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 April 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Francišković v. Croatia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Frédéric Krenc, President,
Davor Derenčinović,
Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 1313/20) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 December 2019 by a Croatian national, Mr Marko Francišković (“the applicant”), who was born in 1970 and lives in Zagreb, and was represented by Ms I. Bojić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stražnik;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns civil proceedings in which the applicant was ordered to pay compensation to G.R. as a result of a statement which the applicant had made against him.

2. In 2013 the applicant ran for a local political office in Zagreb.

3. At the relevant time he was vice president of an association called Pravednik and N.K. was its president. G.R. was director of the public broadcasting organisation Croatian Radio‑Television (hereinafter “HRT”).

4. On 8 May 2013 the applicant and N.K. appeared on the premises of HRT to record a statement presenting the electoral list for the City Assembly of Zagreb, of which the applicant was the lead candidate.

5. He began presenting as follows:

“So, all of us who live in this country know that this regime is that of thieves [and] bandits, that it has done its fair share of stealing, that it has robbed us and that it has systematically been doing this all the time. There, even now as I am saying this, as you are watching this, we are still being robbed. How [do we] stop them? Very simply, give us your vote ...”

6. An HRT employee interrupted him and told him that his remarks were hateful. The applicant then began his presentation again but was once more interrupted by the HRT employee, following which the time allotted to him to present his electoral list had run out. The applicant and N.K., who had filmed the entire event, then left the premises of HRT.

7. Subsequently, in front of the main building of HRT, the applicant commented on the above event and was filmed by N.K. The recording was published on the same day on the YouTube channel of the Pravednik Association entitled “Marko Francišković causes panic and fear at the HRT! 8 May 2013” and included the following passages:

“N.K.: Marko, say something about that recording of the show about how those bandits interrupted you.

The applicant: Yes, yes, well, luckily, [N.K.], you managed to record it there from the studio, how she barged in and started saying that I shouldn’t have that, that it was hate speech when I had said that they were bandits. Of course, then they disrupted my whole concept, I had to repeat myself, which I never do, that’s the worst thing for me, having to repeat something I’ve already said. So then, well, the second recording turned out much worse and I was quite angry and upset with that approach, you know, and those three minutes they give us, which are ridiculous, you know, and then they censor even that on Channel 4, which is the least watched, but still they have to keep everything under some kind of control, showing how afraid they are of the truth. And that just confirms again what cowards they are, what miserable people they are.

N.K.: Marko, did you expect this or were you surprised? I think you weren’t really surprised, right? Or were you?

The applicant: Well, I was [surprised] because we hadn’t even started, I hadn’t even begun the main part. I had only said that they were bandits. And then, in the second recording, I had started listing names and I had wanted to add that we would make them clear minefields and that we would confiscate their property, but time ran out.

N.K.: Unfortunately, yes.

The applicant: Time ran out, I didn’t even manage to finish the sentence ... The guy on the other side signalled that it was over so I stopped, then they signalled to continue, so I went on ...

N.K.: Yes, yes, yes.

The applicant: When I said, ‘let’s repeat it’, they said we can’t repeat [it again], only twice, and the first time was when she had barged in. What can you say, I mean, it’s a bandit gang, it’s, well, part of their people here, this Bill Gates, his errand boy ...

N.K.: Yes, yes, yes. Bandits.

The applicant: What’s his name, [G.R.], the former, no, also the current collaborator of [the Counterintelligence Service (Kak’ se zove, [G.R.], bivši, ne, i daljnji suradnik KOS‑a)].

N.K.: [the Counterintelligence Service], yes, yes, yes.

The applicant: And, well, that’s it. So, such people ... [unintelligible]

N.R.: So, a message for the Croatian public, especially in Zagreb: [vote for] no. 6, right?

The applicant: [Vote for] no. 6, well, if you want to instil fear in these structures, if you want to see how weak they are, what cowards they are, give us your vote, give it to no. 6 and you’ll see how frightened they’ll be. Every vote you give us, even though we know they will falsify it, they will still know how much support we have and how afraid they are.”

8. On 31 October 2013 G.R. brought a civil action for damages in the amount of 50,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) against the applicant claiming that the latter’s statement portraying him as a member of the notorious Counterintelligence Service of the former State (hereinafter “the CIS”) was untrue and that it had caused him damage. He had publicly denied any involvement with the CIS at a press conference held in November 2012, at which a journalist, referring to information previously published in a political magazine, had asked him whether he had been an associate of the CIS.

9. The applicant contested G.R.’s action, explaining that he did not know that the statement he had made was untrue, as there had been ample evidence to support its truthfulness. As evidence he submitted copies of several articles which had been published on the internet before he had made his statement. The applicant stressed that he had made the impugned statement only once, after he had been censored by HRT without any explanation. He also stressed that he had not uploaded the disputed recording to YouTube, nor had he recorded it.

10. On 15 July 2016 the Zagreb Municipal Court partially upheld G.R.’s claim and ordered the applicant to pay him HKR 30,000 (equivalent to approximately 3,980 euros (EUR)) in damages and reimburse him the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 10,199 (approximately EUR 1,350). The court found that it had not been established that the allegation concerning G.R. was true and that such an allegation was objectively capable of causing him damage.

11. An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by a decision of the Osijek County Court of 27 August 2019, which endorsed the reasoning of the Municipal Court.

12. On 18 October 2017 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging, inter alia, that his right to freedom of expression had been violated.

13. In a decision of 26 June 2019, the Constitutional Court, by a majority, dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. After balancing the opposing rights, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant and G.R. were public persons, that the applicant had not acted in good faith and that his sole intention had been to insult G.R. Moreover, it found no grounds to conclude that there had been any public debate regarding G.R.’s alleged collaboration with the CIS. In this respect, it emphasised that any allegation of a connection with the CIS bore an extremely negative connotation, such that individuals implicated in that context inevitably faced contempt and disparagement within the society. The Constitutional Court further considered that the lower courts’ characterisation of the applicant’s statement as one of fact had not in and of itself, in the specific circumstances of the case, violated the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.

14. Before the Court, the applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He also complained, under Article 6, that the proceedings had been unfair on account of the domestic courts’ decisions regarding the hearing of the witnesses he had proposed.

• THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
  1. Alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention
     1. Admissibility

15. The Government firstly argued that the impugned statements, which had been insulting and whose sole aim had been to violate the honour and reputation of G.R., were not protected by Article 10 of the Convention.

16. Taking into account the context in which the impugned statements were made, the Court cannot agree that they amounted only to wanton denigration and that their sole intent was to insult. Rather, it appears that the applicant intended to express his dissatisfaction with being escorted out of the HRT’s premises (see paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above; compare Mesić v. Croatia, no. 19362/18, §§ 33-35, 5 May 2022, and contrast Rujak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57942/10, §§ 25-31, 2 October 2012). It follows that this objection must be rejected.

17. The Government further argued that the applicant had suffered no significant disadvantage. To this end the Court observes that the applicant was ordered to pay compensation of approximately EUR 4,000 and bear the costs of the proceedings. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection that the applicant had suffered no significant disadvantage.

18. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

19. In the light of its finding above that the applicant could rely on Article 10 of the Convention in the present case (see paragraph 16 above) and having regard to its case‑law on the matter (see, for example, Mesić, cited above, § 76), the Court considers that the domestic judgments given in the civil proceedings against the applicant amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. Moreover, the Court accepts that the interference was “prescribed by law”, namely section 1045 of the Civil Obligations Act, and that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of G.R. What remains to be established is whether that interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.

20. The general principles established in the Court’s case‑law for assessing the necessity of an interference with the right to freedom of expression in the interests of the protection of the reputation or rights of others have been summarised in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 84-88, 7 February 2012) and Miljević v. Croatia (no. 68317/13, §§ 48‑52, 56-59 and 66-67, 25 June 2020), among many other authorities.

21. The Court must satisfy itself whether the relevant standards summarised in the cases referred to above were applied in the present case. It notes that the domestic courts acknowledged that G.R. was a public figure in respect of whom the limits of critical comment were wider (see paragraph 13 above; see also Radio Broadcasting Company B92 AD v. Serbia, no. 67369/16, § 78, 5 September 2023, with further references) and sees no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

22. The Court further observes that the Constitutional Court found that there had been no ongoing public debate about allegations concerning G.R.’s possible association with the CIS (see paragraph 13 above), without any reference to their content or to the context in which they had been uttered. The Court reiterates in this connection that the question whether a statement concerns an issue of public concern should depend on a broader assessment of the subject matter and the context of the statement (see Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 92, 27 June 2017 and the cases cited therein).

23. While the Court can agree that the allegation that G.R. had some association with CIS was not directly connected with the local elections, it cannot overlook that the statement was nevertheless made within the political context of the applicant’s candidacy in those elections, as is evident from the broader context of the statement (see paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above). Furthermore, it transpires from one of the dissenting opinions of the Constitutional Court that it was precisely the director of HRT who was in charge of defining rules of conduct of the HRT for the election publicity during the local election, the aim of which was to ensure equal representation and presentation to all candidates at the local elections. This, in the Court’s view, must have made G.R. at least an indirect participant of the election process.

24. The Court further notes that the impugned allegation was previously discussed in several articles and G.R. was explicitly asked about it at a press conference (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). The Court has already held that various issues concerning a State’s previous regime are often the subject of ongoing public debate and are matters of general interest (see Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 69, ECHR 2004‑VI, and Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 62, 3 December 2013). Consequently, the Court finds that the applicant’s statement was made in a political context of ongoing elections and that there existed a public debate regarding G.R.’s alleged association with the CIS which called for a narrower interpretation of any restrictions on the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 125, ECHR 2015).

25. Moreover, the Court cannot accept the domestic courts’ conclusion that the impugned statement was one of facts rather than a value judgment (see paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 above). The Court has previously held that comments about associations with a previous regime should be considered value judgments (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 85, ECHR 2001‑VIII) and sees no reason to depart from that approach in the present case. While such a value judgment may prove to be excessive in the absence of any factual basis (see Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia, no. 20981/10, § 43, 17 April 2014), the Court notes that there existed previously published articles reporting on G.R.’s alleged association with the CIS (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). It therefore cannot be said that the applicant’s statement – while undoubtedly provocative – lacked any factual basis or that it was solely aimed at insulting G.R.

26. Lastly, as to the proportionality of the sanction, the Court notes that the amount of damages which the applicant was ordered to pay – HRK 30,000, that is almost EUR 4,000 – was not insignificant.

27. In light of the above, the Court concludes that the reasons given by the domestic courts cannot be regarded as sufficient justification for the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The domestic courts therefore failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests.

28. Accordingly, the interference complained of was not “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case.

2. OTHER COMPLAINT

29. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair owing to the domestic courts’ decisions regarding the hearing of the witnesses he had proposed.

30. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

• APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

31. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and 25,100 Croatian kunas (HRK – equivalent to approximately EUR 3,300) in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court, consisting of 40 hours billed at an hourly rate of HRK 500 (approximately EUR 70), plus tax and expenses.

32. The Government contested these claims.

33. The Court awards the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

34. Furthermore, according to the Court’s case‑law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3,300 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint;
4. Holds
   1. that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts:
      1. EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage;
      2. EUR 3,300 (three thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
   2. that from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Frédéric Krenc
Deputy Registrar President