Croatian Journalist Mladen Mirković Attacked by Požega Mayor

Update: 06 Dec 2018 Resolved
Year 12 May 2017 Country Croatia Category Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Source of threat State Partner EFJ/IFJ , CPJ , Index Alert level Level 2
12 May 2017 Croatia Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists State EFJ/IFJ , CPJ , Index Level 2

Mladen Mirković, a journalist of the Croatian local website 034portal.hr, was attacked by the Požega Mayor Vedran Neferović on 12 May 2017. The attack happened after the mayor invited him to a meeting in his office. He wanted to know who had written some articles published on the website the journalist is working for. According to the journalist, the major started to shout at him and became aggressive, threatening to kill him and everybody working for the website. He then pushed the journalist against the wall and smacked his head against it. He threw him out of the office while kicking him and continued to do so as he pushed him towards the stairs, reported Mirković. People in the hall witnessed the attack and some administration employees asked the mayor to stop. The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) reported the incident to the police on the journalist’s behalf and called for an investigation into this issue.

Resolved On 12 May 2017, the Požega mayor was charged with misdemeanour by a local court. The police filed a criminal charge against him for issuing public threats and issued a restraining order to protect the journalist. 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

15 May 2017 : On 12 May 2017 the Požega mayor was charged with misdemeanour by a local court. The police filed a criminal charge against him for issuing public threats and issued a restraining order of the duration of 8 days to protect Mladen Mirković.

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