5.  The applicant company, Narodni List d.d., is a joint stock company incorporated under Croatian law which has its registered office in Zadar. It was the publisher of a weekly magazine, Narodni List. 6.  On the morning of 23 November 2006 Ms Z.S.-K., who was at the time a judge of the Zadar Municipal Court, reported to the police Mr A.M., a photojournalist at Narodni List, claiming that on that same morning he had secretly been taking photos of her in front of the Municipal Court building. He was immediately brought in for questioning by the police, after which he was released. He defended himself by saying that he had been photographing the court building and the court employees under the instructions of his editor-in-chief. On the same day Ms Z.S.-K. lodged a criminal complaint against the journalist in question, stating that he had committed the criminal offence of making an unauthorised recording, as defined in Article 131 of the Criminal Code. 7.  The day after, on 24 November 2006, the police again questioned A.M., after which they lodged a criminal complaint against him with the Zadar Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zadru). On the same day, at the request of the police, the investigating judge of the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru), Mr B.B., issued a warrant for police to search through the camera used by A.M. and through Narodni List’s computers with a view to finding photographs of Ms Z.S.-K. During the search, which was carried out on the same day between 2.45 p.m. and 4.05 p.m. on the applicant company’s premises, seven police officers in the presence of two witnesses inspected the camera in question and seven computers belonging to the company. They found no photos of Ms Z.S.-K. 8.  On the same day, 24 November 2006, a web portal, Index, reported on the search of Narodni List’s premises. The short article implicitly criticised the search by noting that Judge Z.S.-K. had lodged a criminal complaint against the photojournalist, A.M., for the “alleged” unauthorised recording, and ironically referring to that journalist as a “dangerous suspect”. On the same day that web portal also published a statement by the chairman of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, Ž.P., who expressed his organisation’s support for Narodni List and stated that the photojournalist had been taking photographs in a public place, which was not against the law. He added that what was going on was “totally crazy”, that whoever went along with the criminal complaint against A.M. was “not in his right mind” (nije pri sebi), and that the entire topic was “too stupid” to warrant any discussion. The next day Index published a commentary defending freedom of the press and criticising the conduct of the police and judicial authorities in the matter. The article was accompanied by two photographs of the building in which another municipal and county court were located. By publishing those photographs the portal satirically expressed its support for A.M. by joining him, as ironically stated in the article, in his seditious and “subversive actions” of photographing court buildings. 9.  In the absence of incriminating evidence, on 12 December 2006 the Zadar Municipal State Attorney’s Office dismissed the criminal complaint against A.M. 10.  Almost two years later, Judge B.B., who had issued the warrant to search the applicant company’s premises, attended the opening of another newspaper in Zadar started by Mr S., a controversial local entrepreneur. The judge thereby again caught the attention of the journalists of Narodni List. 11.  On 31 October 2008 Narodni List published a small article on page three entitled “Judge B. should be put in the pillory” (Suca B. treba prikovati na stup sramote)”[1]. The article, featuring a photo of Judge B., read as follows:
“Judge of the Zadar County Court B.B. came to congratulate S. on starting a daily newspaper. Even though that is not allowed under [...] the Code of Judicial Ethics because of the potential conflict of interest, B. nevertheless stopped by for a drink with his acquaintance from old times. B.’s arrival would have gone unnoticed had this judge not become ‘famous’ [even] outside Croatia’s borders by illegally signing a warrant to search [the premises of] Narodni List. On the basis of that authorisation a herd of policemen raided [the premises of] Narodni List looking for photos of his colleague, Judge S.-K. That [set] a precedent unknown in western democracies.
What B. is doing in journalistic circles is known only to the crew around S. In the western world journalists put such judges in the pillory.” 12.  Judge B.B. asked the newspaper to publish an apology but it refused to do so. 13.  On 26 November 2008 the judge brought a civil action for defamation against the applicant company before the Benkovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Benkovcu), seeking 50,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He argued that the article constituted an open invitation to lynch him and that it had harmed his reputation in that it called into question his moral and professional integrity by insinuating that he had broken the law while exercising his duties as a judge. Throughout the proceedings the applicant company was represented by Mr V.Š. (see paragraphs 25, 28-29 below). 14.  By a judgment of 10 March 2010 the Municipal Court ruled for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant company to pay him HRK 50,000[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the form of his tarnished reputation, as well as HRK 6,005[3] with respect to costs of proceedings. The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows:
“It is undisputed between the parties that the impugned text constitutes a value judgment ...
...
Section 21(1) of the Media Act prescribes that a publisher who causes damage to another person by [publishing] information in the media is obliged to compensate [that person], except in cases prescribed by the same Act (section 21(4)).
...
... this court finds that the defendant [company], as the publisher, ... by publishing the impugned text entitled ‘Judge B. should be put in the pillory’ and the [accompanying] photo of the plaintiff, exceeded the bounds of the freedom to publish information, to the prejudice of the plaintiff. [By publishing that information the defendant company], without [presenting] valid arguments, and contrary to journalistic ethics, harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, honour and dignity as an individual and as a judge of the Zadar County Court. [This court also finds] that the impugned damaging information does not constitute any [of the types of] information listed in section 21(4) of the Media Act. For these reasons the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the breach of his rights of personality [prava osobnosti] within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Media Act and section 1100(1) and (2) of the Obligations Act – that is to say to just financial compensation in the amount claimed by the action. When determining the level of just financial compensation the court, guided by the principle of proportionality, took into account the consequences of the defendant [company]’s statements, which exceeded the bounds of acceptable criticism ...” 15.  By a judgment of 3 December 2010 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) dismissed an appeal by the applicant company and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final. The relevant part of the second-instance judgment reads as follows:
“... in its appellate arguments the defendant [company] actually states the reasons whereby it justifies the publication of the impugned article.
However, there is no justification for it. Beginning with its headline (‘Judge B. should be put in the pillory’) the impugned article does not use acceptable and normal ways of expression. In that sense the following statements are worth noting: ‘B’s arrival would have gone unnoticed had this judge not become ‘famous’ [even] outside Croatia’s borders by illegally signing the warrant to search [the premises of] Narodni List’ and ‘What B. is doing in journalistic circles is known only to the crew around S. In the western world journalists put such judges in the pillory’. [Those statements] represent a grave personal media attack on the plaintiff [aimed at] settling scores with [him] in a very rude way, because of [the defendant company’s] dissatisfaction with a decision that the plaintiff adopted in the exercise of his duty as a judge. The article depicts the plaintiff as a person unworthy of judicial office and calls into question his professional competence ... The plaintiff’s honour, reputation and dignity, and also his professional dignity, were thereby violated, which justifies awarding non-pecuniary damages in respect of a breach of his rights of personality.
...
... when publishing information containing value judgments, journalists are obliged to respect the dignity, honour and reputation of the person they write about and to avoid using insulting and demeaning expressions, because the publisher cannot escape liability for damages where ... a value judgment is expressed in an insulting manner.” 16.  The applicant company then, on 16 February 2011, lodged a constitutional complaint alleging violations of its freedom of expression and its right to fair procedure, both guaranteed by the Constitution. It also relied on Article 10 of the Convention. 17.  By a decision of 19 October 2011 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional complaint. It held that freedom of expression was not absolute and could be restricted for the protection of the dignity, reputation and honour of others, which rights were also guaranteed by the Constitution. In particular, the Constitutional Court held that the ordinary courts had correctly applied the relevant substantive law and given sufficient reasons for their judgments.