TORDAJ v. SERBIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. The applicant, Ms Divna Tordaj, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Belgrade. She was represented before the Court by Ms B. Zarić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. 2. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Ms V. Rodić, and subsequently by their current Agent, Ms N. Plavšić. 3. On 13 November 2003 the applicant instituted private prosecution proceedings against P.A. for defamation, claiming that he had falsely accused her of extortion and nuisance in a letter to some local authorities. 4. On 25 February 2004 the Belgrade Municipal Court ordered the applicant to submit some additional information, which she did on 13 April 2004. 5. On 9 March 2006 the applicant applied to the criminal court to speed up the proceedings in view of the short limitation period in respect of defamation claims (see paragraph 10 below). 6. On 14 March 2006 the criminal court responded that the proceedings would become statute-barred in August 2007 and that it would take all necessary measures to prevent that. 7. On 17 July 2006 a hearing to attempt a friendly settlement was held. The defendant expressed his readiness to make an apology to the applicant, since he had had no intention of insulting her. The applicant did not accept his apology. 8. On 29 March 2007 the Municipal Court found the defendant guilty of defamation. However, the Belgrade District Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial on 28 June 2007. 9. On 30 August 2007 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings as statute-barred. The District Court upheld that decision on 24 October 2007. 10. In the present case, although the alleged defamation had taken place in 2003, the domestic courts applied the Criminal Code 2005 because its provisions were more lenient for the defendant in respect of punishment. Article 104 of the Code provides that the time-limit for criminal prosecution for defamation expires four years after the commission of the offence. 11. Since January 2013 defamation has no longer been considered as a criminal offence (OG RS no. 121/2012). 12. Articles 157, 199 and 200 of the Obligations Act, taken together, provide, inter alia, that anyone who has suffered fear, physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his reputation, personal integrity, liberty or of his other personal rights (prava ličnosti) is entitled to seek injunctive relief, sue for financial compensation and request other forms of redress “which might be capable” of affording adequate non-pecuniary satisfaction.