The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Serbia for sanctioning a radio station that broadcast the findings of an investigation into alleged irregularities in the procurement of swine flu vaccines.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has accepted a lawsuit against Serbia for arbitrary sanctions against a media company. It considered a violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case involved a radio station that mentioned in its program a news investigation linking the deputy health minister and other authorities to alleged irregularities in the procurement of swine flu (H1N1) vaccines. The matter was widely covered in company news and newspaper articles. For this, she was sued by the Deputy Minister.

A lower court accepted the charge, arguing that the broadcaster had damaged the authority’s reputation and was ordered to pay 1,750 euros in moral damages and remove articles from its platform that referred to the alleged corruption case. The court found that the sentenced woman did not carefully verify the information she posted.

After exhausting national avenues, the company sued the Serbian state at the European Court of Human Rights for violating its right to disseminate information. He argued that his intention was not to damage the honor and reputation of the authorities, but simply to keep the public informed about state-related events.

In its substantive analysis, the court stated that “(…) the information disseminated and published by the applicant clearly concerns matters of public interest, in particular irregularities in the procurement process of swine flu vaccines. The Deputy Minister is a civil servant and should have shown greater Tolerance: Serbian courts recognize both sides of the conflict.

It added that “(…) the court has taken a rather limited position in qualifying all the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s corporate report. The allegations of alleged involvement of the relevant authorities are therefore statements of fact. As for the rest, these allegations are supported by There is no doubt about the credibility of the police records. The court also failed to find that the requesting company released the investigative information in violation of confidentiality laws.”

It affirms that “(…) the court did not examine whether the third allegation – involving pressure from the Home Office – was a value judgment (which cannot be proven), nor did it assess the language used in the report. The company “Reasons for suspicion” and “police suspects list” are therefore accurate and not exaggerated. They also fail to take into account the fact that claims firms are trying to strike a balance in their reports.”

The Tribunal concluded that “(…) the national courts exceeded their limited leeway (“narrow margin of judgment”) to limit debate on matters of public interest. Moreover, the interference with the plaintiff’s corporate freedom of expression was not consistent with the objectives pursued disproportionate and unnecessary in the context of a democratic society”.

Accordingly, the Court ordered Serbia to pay €2,740 for material damages, €2,500 for moral damages and €2,400 for costs and expenses.

See European Court of Human Rights judgment 67369.16.