The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Serbian authorities did not violate article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in a case filed by four Belgrade-based journalists who alleged that the government failed to protect them from persecution.

The Court “holds that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention,” the ruling said.

“The Court notes that even though the applicants submitted that they had felt threatened following the publication of the above articles and broadcasting of the programmes in question, none of them has ever in fact been subjected to any act of violence,” it said.

The four journalists – Ilir Gasi, Vukasin Obradovic, Antonela Riha and Tamara Skroza – filed criminal charges against the authors of articles and TV shows who attacked organizations and individuals who advocate equality. The charges were thrown out by prosecutors following an investigation. The journalists decided to take the case to the Strasbourg-based court where their suit alleged a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of expression and an obligation to protect journalists.

The four journalists issued a statement saying that they launched legal proceedings with the Serbian judiciary to defend the right to free speech and draw public attention to the fact that anyone critical of the authorities can be accused of committing the worst crimes in the media and that they filed with the Court in Strasbourg because the legal means at their disposal are not effective.

The Court said that the Serbian government recalled that the plaintiffs had several legal remedies that should have been used at their disposal.

“The positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention require States to create, while establishing an effective system for the protection of journalists, a favorable environment for participation in public debate by all the persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if they run counter to those defended by the official authorities or by a significant part of public opinion, or even if irritating or shocking to the latter.” the ruling said.