Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Serbia violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by imposing disproportionate civil sanctions on a national media outlet in response to its investigative reporting on public vaccine procurement. The case involved television broadcasts and an online article published by B92, a Serbian media company, which reported on alleged irregularities in the government’s 2009 purchase of AH1N1 vaccines. Serbian courts held the outlet liable for defamation, ordering it to pay damages, remove the article from its website, and publish the judgment. However, the ECtHR observed that the media outlet had acted in good faith and adhered to professional practices on a matter of significant public interest which fell within the press’s role as a public watchdog. The Court held that the domestic courts had failed to properly balance the right to freedom of expression with the protection of reputation, and had not sufficiently considered the journalistic context, including the sourcing and the public official status of the person concerned. It further found that the cumulative effect of the sanctions—damages, content removal, and the requirement to publish the judgment—was likely to have a chilling effect on investigative journalism. Accordingly, the Court found that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society and held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

---

Facts

The applicant in this case is Radio Broadcasting Company B92 AD, a prominent Serbian media outlet based in Belgrade, which owns the television station B92 TV and the online news portal B92.net. Registered in 2005, the company reported a net profit of approximately €2.85 million in 2020, underscoring its significant role in the Serbian media landscape.

In 2011, B92 conducted investigative reporting for its television series Insider – Buying and Selling Health, focusing on the Serbian government’s 2009 procurement of AH1N1 vaccines. As part of its investigation, B92 obtained “official note no. 14/11,” dated September 13, 2011, from the Anti-Corruption Division (ACD) of the Ministry of the Interior. The note was delivered to the station’s editor-in-chief by two police officers.

The note summarized pre-trial actions from 2009 to 2011, including police surveillance, document seizure, and witness interviews, all overseen by the Special Prosecutor for Organised Crime. It stated that the investigation had entered its final phase by early September 2011. According to the ACD, meetings held between September, 5 and 13, with the Special Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutor led to the conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion that six individuals, including Z.P., then Assistant Minister of Health, had committed abuse of office to benefit the vaccine supplier, J. company.

Specifically, the note alleged that Z.P. had:

(a) failed to inform the government that over three million vaccine doses had already been reserved via another supplier;

(b) engaged in negotiations with a third party offering better terms, which were not pursued; and

(c) instructed a subordinate to revise a procurement report in favor of J. company.

Initially, the ACD recommended charges against 14 individuals, including Z.P. However, the Special Prosecutor’s Office decided there was insufficient evidence against Ministry of Health officials and insisted that only three individuals—S.V., V.G., and Lj.P.—be named in the criminal complaint. Ministry officials objected, arguing that omitting Ministry staff would distort the case’s broader context.

Despite this disagreement, a revised complaint naming all 14 individuals was submitted on September 9, 2011, during a meeting at the Special Prosecutor’s Office, where the ACD also presented audio surveillance evidence. Nevertheless, the final complaint filed before November 29, 2011 included only the three individuals approved by the prosecutors.

On November 27, 2011, B92 TV reported that Z.P. and others had originally been on the police suspect list, but that 12 names were dropped following discussions with prosecutors. The reports aired again on November 28–29, and December 13–14, 2011, frequently showing Z.P.’s photograph.

B92.net published an article titled “Insider: Selective Justice?” echoing the same claims and suggesting that prosecutorial pressure had led to Z.P.’s exclusion from the complaint. The article criticized the perceived selective justice and included partial responses from the Special Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry, both denying any wrongdoing and confirming that only three individuals were considered suspects.

A follow-up article on November 27, “The Ministry reacts to Insider,” reiterated that Z.P. and other senior officials had been under police suspicion regarding the vaccine procurement.

Z.P. requested B92 to publish a denial, accusing the broadcaster of acting as judge and jury and spreading unverified accusations amounting to a public lynching. B92 refused to publish their full statement, only noting their intent to pursue legal action.

On April 27, 2012, Z.P. filed a civil lawsuit before the Belgrade High Court, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary harm to her reputation, removal of the two contested articles from B92’s website, and publication of the court’s judgment. She later added B92’s editor-in-chief as a co-defendant. Z.P. maintained that she had never been officially suspected and that claims of her removal from a suspect list were false.

B92 argued that the reporting was based on a document from a relevant state authority and served the public interest. It invoked Article 82 of the 2003 Public Information Act, which provides legal immunity to journalists when citing official documents. The editor-in-chief testified that the police note was handed over by officers and deemed newsworthy. The investigative journalist involved said Z.P. had initially agreed to comment but later withdrew.

On October 23, 2013, the Belgrade High Court partially ruled in Z.P.’s favor. It ordered B92 to pay damages (RSD 200,000) and legal costs (RSD 113,100), to remove the “Insider: Selective Justice?” article, and to publish the court’s decision. The court found that B92 had failed to verify its reporting, did not seek timely comment from Z.P., and relied on a document that did not qualify as an official source under Article 82. The judgment also highlighted that no charges were filed against Z.P., and that the reporting conveyed unverified allegations implying criminal misconduct and institutional pressure.

B92 appealed, citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On June 5, 2014, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, reiterating that the applicant had failed to verify both the origin and accuracy of the information. It found that Article 82 was inapplicable and that any interference with freedom of expression was justified to protect individual reputation under Article 8 of the ECHR.

A constitutional appeal was filed on July 30, 2014. On May 18, 2016, the Constitutional Court dismissed it, holding that while freedom of expression was at stake, the interference pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. The court ruled that B92’s reporting did not meet the standards of responsible journalism, particularly as it made unverified factual claims suggesting that Z.P. had been removed from a suspect list due to improper prosecutorial influence. While noting that public officials must tolerate higher scrutiny, the court found that B92 had crossed permissible limits.

After exhausting domestic remedies, B92 submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights on November 9, 2016, alleging that the civil defamation judgments constituted a disproportionate interference with its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

---

Decision Overview

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Radio Broadcasting Company B92 AD v. Serbia, addressing whether civil defamation sanctions imposed on a Serbian media company violated its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The applicant, B92 AD, had aired and published reports in late 2011 stating that Z.P., then Assistant Minister of Health, had initially appeared on a police suspect list regarding alleged abuses during the procurement of AH1N1 vaccines, but was later removed following consultations between the police and the Special Prosecutor’s Office. Domestic courts found this reporting defamatory and ordered the company to pay damages, remove an article from its website, and publish the judgment.

The media company argued that the interference with its freedom of expression was unjustified and unnecessary in a democratic society. It emphasized that the information was a faithful summary of an internal note issued by the Anti-Corruption Department (ACD) of the Ministry of the Interior and that the intent was not to damage Z.P.’s reputation but to contribute to public debate on a matter of significant public interest—namely, the alleged irregularities in the vaccine procurement process and the potential pressure on investigative authorities.

B92 maintained that its reporting stemmed from a legitimate journalistic inquiry and accurately conveyed internal communications without suggesting that Z.P. had been formally charged or that the Prosecutor’s Office had taken specific action against her. The existence of conflicting positions between police and prosecutors was presented as a relevant context. The company argued that it was not required to independently verify the content of an internal state document under such circumstances.

The applicant also noted that the defamation proceedings concerned only a few articles and television segments, not the broader body of its investigative work. It asserted that journalists should have leeway to use provocative language, citing the phrase “many [got] protected” as legitimate editorial commentary on institutional dynamics.

Furthermore, B92 defended its decision not to publish Z.P.’s denial in full, arguing that her statement amounted to opinion rather than verifiable fact and thus did not meet the standards for a right of reply. The applicant contended that even the initiation of civil proceedings, absent criminal penalties, represented a violation of its rights under Article 10.

In response, the Government argued there was no violation of Article 10. It contended that the interference was lawful, proportionate, and necessary in a democratic society. The domestic courts had provided sufficient reasoning, and the civil judgment had not placed an undue burden on B92, especially since the damages awarded were consistent with national case law and did not jeopardize the company’s operations.

The Government maintained that the courts had considered both the article “The Ministry reacts to Insider” and the related television segments, framing them as part of a broader context. It argued that B92 had published inaccurate factual statements suggesting Z.P. concealed procurement details, manipulated the process to benefit a specific supplier, and influenced investigative authorities—all without sufficient evidence. These were not value judgments but serious factual allegations requiring a higher standard of verification, which the applicant failed to meet.

According to the Government, the internal note cited by the applicant was only a pre-trial, operational summary and lacked the official status necessary to support such claims. It further argued that the courts were better positioned to evaluate the probative value of such documents and rightly concluded that the applicant could not invoke journalistic protection based on its content.

The Court agreed that there had been an interference with B92’s freedom of expression, and that the interference was “prescribed by law” and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, as set out in Article 10(2) of the ECHR. The key issue, however, was whether this interference was necessary in a democratic society.

Applying its well-established test, the Court emphasized that although States enjoy a margin of appreciation in regulating expression, this margin is narrow when the media report on matters of public interest. Freedom of expression carries duties and responsibilities, but sanctions that could discourage public-interest journalism must be rigorously scrutinized. The Court reiterated six core criteria to assess the proportionality of restrictions: (1) contribution to a public debate; (2) status of the person affected; (3) method of obtaining and verifying information; (4) content, form, and consequences of the publication; (5) impact of the sanction; and (6) the severity of the interference.

The Court found that B92’s reporting contributed to public debate on issues of clear public concern. Z.P., as a high-ranking public official, was subject to a higher threshold of scrutiny. The Court accepted that B92 took reasonable steps to verify the information—it obtained the police note from identifiable sources, sought comment from Z.P. (who declined), and included the Prosecutor’s Office’s official response.

Crucially, the Court criticized the domestic courts for failing to assess whether the contested statements were value judgments based on disclosed facts. While B92 had suggested prosecutorial pressure might have led to the removal of names from a suspect list, this was presented in a cautious, contextualized manner that aligned with responsible journalism and reflected a broader concern over selective justice.

It noted that while the applicant company reported that names were removed from the suspect list following consultation with prosecutors, and suggested this may have occurred under pressure, this allegation was framed cautiously and could reasonably be seen as a value judgment related to a systemic concern, which is selective justice.

The Court also noted that the domestic courts had not properly balanced the competing rights at stake under Articles 8 and 10. They dismissed B92’s freedom of expression claims as irrelevant to Z.P.’s privacy rights and failed to engage in the nuanced legal analysis required.

Moreover, the Court expressed concern that the civil sanctions (damages, content removal, and publication of the judgment) could have a chilling effect on investigative reporting. It underscored the essential watchdog function of the press in democratic societies and emphasized that even moderate penalties can deter journalists from reporting on matters of public interest.

The Court drew upon precedent, including Axel Springer AG v. Germany, Morice v. France, Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, to affirm that legal penalties should not undermine the media’s ability to engage in good-faith reporting on public affairs.

In conclusion, the Court unanimously held that the interference with B92’s freedom of expression was not justified under Article 10(2) and constituted a violation of the ECHR. It found that the domestic courts failed to apply the relevant legal standards or conduct a fair assessment of the facts. As a remedy, the Court awarded B92 €2,740 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and €2,500 for legal costs and expenses.

---