Journalist Stefan Cvetkovic Sentenced to Jail for Unauthorised Publication

Resolved
Year 30 Mar 2017 Country Serbia Category Harassment and intimidation of journalists Source of threat State Partner EFJ/IFJ , AEJ , Index Alert level Level 2
30 Mar 2017 Serbia Harassment and intimidation of journalists State EFJ/IFJ , AEJ , Index Level 2

On 14 March 2017, freelance journalist Stefan Cvetkovic was found guilty by the court of the city of Vršac (Serbia) of unauthorised publication and presentation of somebody else’s texts and recordings. The journalist received a two year and three month jail sentence and must pay a €17,000 fine for insult. According to the legal advisor of Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS), Cvetkovic has appealed against the judgment and is waiting for the second instance court ruling. His sentence is suspended and he remains free. Mr Cvetkovic was prosecuted after three officials from the ruling party filed a complaint against him. The Serbian journalist was investigating the role of the said officials in criminal matters. Previously he had filed a complaint against local authorities on the grounds of misuse of public funds in 2014.

Resolved In April 2018, the High Court in Pancevo annulled the decision of the lower court on the sentence. On 6 December 2018, the partner organisations to the Platform declared this case to be “resolved”, concluding it was no longer an active threat to media freedom.

Updates

09 May 2018 : In April 2018, the High Court in Pancevo annulled the decision by which, on 14 March 2017, Stefan Cvetkovic’s had been found guilty of libel, unauthorised publication and presentation of somebody else’s texts and recordings.
11 Apr 2017 : On 11 April 2017 the Pančeva Supreme Court annulled the initial sentence and returned the case to the primary court in Vršac for a re-trial.

State replies

16 Apr 2018 : Reply from the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Serbia

Follow-ups

23 Feb 2018 : Commissioner for Human Rights: ‘Concerted efforts needed to protect media freedoms in Serbia’

CONTACT US

Follow us   

Follow-ups to alerts Follow-ups to alerts

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.
Twitter feed Twitter feed
Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Partners Partners

CONTACT US

Follow us