Rp: Created page with “{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Croatia |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=OGS Zagreb |Court_Original_Name=Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu |Court_English_Name=Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb |Court_With_Country=OGS Zagreb (Croatia) |Case_Number_Name=Pn-877/2023-29 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=OGS Zagreb |Original_Source_Link_1=https://odluke.sudovi.hr/Document/View?id=dbadb0f4-bf7a-41a9-b560-fd90e582056a&q=Op%25c4%2587a+uredba+o+za%2…”
|Jurisdiction=Croatia
|Court-BG-Color=
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
|Court_Abbrevation=OGS Zagreb
|Court_Original_Name=Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu
|Court_English_Name=Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb
|Court_With_Country=OGS Zagreb (Croatia)
|Case_Number_Name=Pn-877/2023-29
|ECLI=
|Original_Source_Name_1=OGS Zagreb
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://odluke.sudovi.hr/Document/View?id=dbadb0f4-bf7a-41a9-b560-fd90e582056a&q=Op%25c4%2587a+uredba+o+za%25c5%25a1titi+podataka
|Original_Source_Language_1=Croatian
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=HR
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=
|Date_Decided=16.01.2026
|Date_Published=01.02.2026
|Year=2026
|GDPR_Article_1=Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 5 GDPR#1a
|GDPR_Article_2=Article 6(1) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 6 GDPR#1
|GDPR_Article_3=
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=
|GDPR_Article_4=
|GDPR_Article_Link_4=
|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Name_1=
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=
|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=
|Appeal_From_Body=
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_From_Status=
|Appeal_From_Link=
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=Unknown
|Appeal_To_Link=
|Initial_Contributor=RP
|
}}
A court awarded €3,000 to a data subject after finding a news portal violated her privacy under [[Article 5 GDPR]] by publishing her personal data unnecessarily and disproportionately, despite claims of public interest.
== English Summary ==
=== Facts ===
A data subject filed a lawsuit against Propuls d.o.o., the controller and publisher of the news portal direktno.hr, claiming that two articles published on 11 January 2023 and 31 January 2023 disclosed her personal data without her consent:
The first article reported on payments related to the football club Dinamo Zagreb and included the data subject’s full name, bank account number, and payment amounts. The second article referred to the first article via a hyperlink but did not mention the data subject directly.
The data subject argued that the disclosure violated her right to privacy and the protection of personal and family life under Croatian law and GDPR. She claimed non-material damage and sought compensation as well as publication of the court decision in the controller’s news portal.
The controller admitted publishing the articles but argued that the information was accurate and that publishing the data served the public interest. The controller also stated that it had issued a correction upon the data subject request and argued that journalistic activity may be exempt from certain obligations under GDPR and it’s exempt from liability if the facts concerned are true according to the Croatian Media.
The evidence included the published articles, the correction request, witness testimony from journalists and the data subject, and financial records.
=== Holding ===
The court held that the controller violated the data subject’s right to privacy and the protection of personal and family life. It reasoned that publishing her full name, bank account number, and payment amounts was disproportionate because the details were not necessary to inform the public about the football club payments.
Following the ECHR jurisprudence, the court applied a proportionality test, balancing the controller’s freedom of expression against data subject’s privacy rights under the Croatian Constitution and civil law. The court emphasised that the data subject was not a public figure, had not voluntarily exposed her private life to the media, and did not participate in public debate in a way that could justify disclosing her sensitive data.
The court also addressed the controller’s argument regarding journalistic freedom. It recognised that journalists may publish personal data when there is an overriding public interest, such as exposing wrongdoing or contributing to an important debate. However, in this case, the disclosure of the data subject’s bank account and payment amounts was unnecessary for the story’s public interest. The court noted that general information about club payments could have been reported without identifying her.
Regarding the harm suffered, the court found that the data subject experienced non-material damage, including emotional stress and intrusion into her private and family life. It awarded €3,000 in damages with statutory interest, while rejecting the additional claim of €3,636.14 as excessive. The court also denied the data subject’s request to publish the decision, explaining that publishing it could further disclose her personal data and undermine her privacy rights.
== Comment ==
While there’s no direct reference to a specific Article in the GDPR, it is clear that the decision is referring to Article 5 (1) (a) and 6 given that it is about lack of legal basis.
== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”
== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the Croatian original. Please refer to the Croatian original for more details.
<pre>
REPUBLIC OF CROATIAMUNICIPAL CIVIL COURT IN ZAGREBUlica grada Vukovara 84Registration number Pn-877/2023-29IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIAJUDGMENT Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb, Judge Eli Mišura Stopfer, in the legal matter of the plaintiff EG from [address], OIB: [personal identification number], represented by attorney Tomislav Miličević, attorney at law at the Miličević i Šupuković d.o.o. Law Firm in Zagreb, against the defendant Propuls d.o.o. from Zagreb, Županići 2E, OIB: 12518683193, represented by attorney Nataša Kolar Ričko, attorney in Zagreb, for the purpose of compensation for damages, after the main and public hearing held and concluded on November 12, 2025 in the presence of the plaintiff’s deputy attorney – attorney Ivo Eškinj and the defendant’s attorney, on January 16, 2026. The judgment is as follows. The defendant Propuls d.o.o. is ordered to to pay the plaintiff EG the amount of EUR 3,000.00 with default interest running on that amount from 22 February 2023 until payment at a rate determined by 28 December 2023 at an interest rate determined, for each half-year, by increasing the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its most recent main refinancing operations carried out before the first calendar day of the current half-year by three percentage points, and from 29 December 2023 until payment at a rate determined for each half-year, by increasing the reference rate by three percentage points, whereby for the first half-year the reference rate in force on 1 January applies, and for the second half-year the reference rate in force on 1 July of that year, while the reference rate is the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its most recent main refinancing operations or the marginal interest rate resulting from the variable rate tender procedures for the last main refinancing operations of the European Central Bank, within 15 days, while in the remaining part for the amount of 3,636.14 Euros with the requested default interest, the claim is rejected as partially unfounded.II. The claim is rejected as partially unfounded in the part that reads: “The defendant is ordered to publish the integral text of the judgment on the internet portal direktno.hr, without comments, at its own expense, within 15 days from the date of the judgment becoming final.”III. The defendant Propuls d.o.o. is ordered to compensate the plaintiff EG for the costs of the proceedings in the amount of EUR 1,050.31 with default interest running on that amount from January 16, 2026 until payment at the rate determined for each half-year, by increasing the reference rate by three percentage points, whereby the reference rate in force on January 1 shall apply for the first half-year, and the reference rate in force on July 1 of that year for the second half-year, while the reference rate shall be the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its most recent main refinancing operations or the marginal interest rate resulting from the tender procedures for the variable rate for the most recent main refinancing operations of the European Central Bank, within 15 days. Reasoning 1. The plaintiff claims in the lawsuit and during the proceedings that on January 11, 2023, an article entitled: “IS THERE AN END? MONEY EXTRACTION Uncovered octopus in Dinamo: E brother appointed as the head of the kitchen, the ‘dirty policeman’ invoices his expenses to the club” in which incorrect information was published in relation to the plaintiff and the personal data protected by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1, (hereinafter: Regulation (EU) 2016/679) were published without authorisation. Furthermore, on 31 January 2023, an article entitled, cit. “SUSPENSIVE BUSINESS IN DINAM WE FIND OUT UNOFFICIALLY E was investigated; USKOK did not confirm or deny new investigations in Dinamo” with the indication of the author, cit. “mp/ri”, i.e. under an abbreviation or pseudonym. In the article in question, the public twice in a row, a link was directly linked to the previously mentioned article published on January 11, 2023, without indicating that corrections were published on January 20, 2023, in response to requests from other persons to whom the same applies, sent to the editor-in-chief and publisher of the portal direktno.hr on January 16, 2023. In relation to the aforementioned articles, on February 9, 2023, a request for correction of inaccurately published information was submitted by e-mail (to [email address]) to the publisher Propuls d.o.o. and the editor-in-chief of the portal JG on behalf of the plaintiff, which was, however, not published. The untrue, inaccurate and unverified allegations in the articles in question, compiled contrary to the fundamental principles of the Code of Honor of Croatian Journalists, seriously violated the rights and interests of the plaintiff, and personal data protected by law and the Regulation were made public illegally and without any objective, rational and legal basis, as a result of which the plaintiff suffered non-material damage through a violation of her rights personality. The plaintiff, based on the cited provisions of the Media Act, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Articles 19 and 1100 of the Civil Obligations Act, claims damages for violation of personality rights in the amount of EUR 6,636.14 with default interest from the day after the filing of the claim on 22 February 2023 until payment, as well as, at the defendant’s expense, the publication of a final judgment, all with reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings with default interest. 2. The defendant, in his response to the claim and during the proceedings, disputes the claim and the claim, stating that it is indisputable that the defendant published an article entitled “MONEY EXTRACTION Revealed Octopus in Dinamo: E put his brother as the head of the kitchen, the “dirty policeman” invoices the club for his expenses” on 11 January 2023, and that it is also indisputable that the defendant fully complied with the request for publication of the correction from 16 January 2023 and published a correction on January 20, 2023, entitled “CORRECTION SG: My guilt for the criminal offenses has not been proven, the proceedings have not been completed and there is no final conviction.” The defendant points out that the information published in the disputed article of January 11, 2023, which mentions the plaintiff in relation to her work for the company Plavi korner d.o.o., is not untrue. On the contrary, the information provided is true, which the plaintiff herself admits in the Request for Correction of Incorrectly Published Information of February 7, 2023, stating that “she is one of 140 reported part-time workers of the company Plavi korner d.o.o.” Therefore, the listing of the plaintiff as an employee, even if she was also a part-time worker of the company Plavi Korner d.o.o., represents an accurate fact and therefore, in accordance with Art. 21 of the applicable Media Act, the defendant is exempt from liability for any non-material damage caused by the publication of this information, and especially taking into account the fact that the information and news regarding GNK Dinamo Zagreb are of overriding public interest not only for the sports community, but also for the entire public of the Republic of Croatia, and therefore there is no violation of the right to privacy. Also, although the plaintiff refers to the violation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter referred to as the GDPR), the defendant notes that it cannot be applied to the professional activities of journalists, while the law does not expressly prescribe the protection of data relating to the plaintiff’s payroll and bank account number, and the defendant again notes that there is a justified public interest in publishing the aforementioned truthful information. In addition to all of the above, regardless of the fact that the defendant did not violate the provisions of the contested article of 11 January 2023 GDPR, the defendant nevertheless acted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Media Act and voluntarily published a correction on 20 January 2023. Therefore, the defendant believes that the plaintiff’s claim is unfounded and that any potential material and non-material damage has already been compensated by the publication of the correction, in accordance with the Media Act, while the plaintiff does not state what other non-material damage occurred when publishing the true information. It proposes to dismiss the claim and order the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant for the costs of the proceedings.3. In these proceedings, the subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damage due to the violation of personality rights due to the publication on the defendant’s portal under the title: “IS THERE AN END? MONEY EXTRACTION The octopus in Dinamo is exposed: E put his brother as the head of the kitchen, the ‘dirty policeman’ invoices the club for his expenses” from 11 January 2023, as well as the publication under the title “SUSPENSIVE DEALINGS IN DINAM UNOFFICIALLY WE FIND OUT E examined; USKOK did not confirm or deny new investigations in Dinamo” with indication of the author, cit. “mp/ri”, dated January 31, 2023, in which the link directly refers to the previously mentioned article published on January 11, 2023; as well as the request for the publication of this judgment on the defendant’s portal direktno.hr.4. The fact that the defendant published the articles in question is not disputed between the parties. What is disputed is whether such publication caused damage to the plaintiff to the extent that it justifies the award of monetary compensation and whether the defendant has exculpatory reasons prescribed by the provision of Article 21, paragraph 4 of the Media Act (Official Gazette, No. 59/04, 84/11 and 81/13, hereinafter referred to as the Media Act), as well as whether there is a causal link between the harmful act and the damage caused to the plaintiff.5. The following proposed evidence was presented in the evidentiary proceedings: the published articles (the newspaper 5-9 and 16-20 of the file), request for publication of correction (sheets 11-15 of the file), witness JG (sheets 67-68 of the file), witness ČG (sheets 68-69 of the file), witness SG (sheet 69 of the file), prosecutor (sheet 70 of the file) and witness ZG (sheets 99-100 of the file) were heard. 6. The Court, based on the provision of Art. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act (“Official Gazette”, No.: 53/91., 91/92., 112/99., 88/01., 117/03., 88/05., 02/07 – Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, 84/08., 123/08., 57/11., 25/13., 28/13., 89/14., 70/19, 80/22, 114/22.and 155/23. – hereinafter referred to as: ZPP) and the conducted evidentiary procedure, and having assessed the evidence individually and in its entirety, determined that the claim is partially well-founded.7. An inspection of the articles that are the subject of these proceedings has determined that on January 11, 2023, an article was published on the internet portal direktno.hr entitled: “IS THERE AN END? MONEY EXTRACTION The octopus in Dinamo exposed: E made his brother the head of the kitchen, the ‘dirty policeman’ invoices his expenses to the club”, in which, in relation to the plaintiff, it is stated that “the wife of SG, EG, is on the payroll of “Plavi korner”. And this is a conflict of interest because GNK Dinamo pays services to its employee. “, and a statement of turnover was also published from which it is evident that fees were paid to several people and that information about all persons was blacked out on that list, except for the plaintiff, for whom information about the name, surname, account number and amount of fees, as well as the date of payment remained unblacked out. In relation to the article published on 31 January 2023, the court also inspected that article, but it does not contain any allegations relating to the plaintiff, but it contains a link to the previously cited article, as the plaintiff states in the lawsuit.8. From the testimony of witness LG, it follows that he is the editor-in-chief of the Direktno hr portal and knows everything about the circumstances of the publication of the article in question on 11.1.2023., which is one of a series of texts published due to the events at Dinamo and the public’s interest in the same events. They received the information published in that text from a direct source, they tried to get in touch with people from Dinamo but did not receive a response to the email via official channels. They received the documents published with the article, including the salary slip, from their source at Dinamo who is employed at Dinamo. They did not even try to get in touch with the plaintiff, since they considered it unnecessary because the text was about Dinamo and not about her, and they did not even have her phone number. The editor-in-chief gives the journalists basic instructions, and it is up to the journalist whether he will take any further action. Thus, his personal decision in this case was to contact the Dinamo club, and he does not know whether the journalist later contacted the prosecutor, and therefore he does not know that in the case initiated by SG due to the same article, the journalist stated this. His goal was to determine the credibility of the documents published with the article, and the only right way seemed to him to contact Dinamo, which compiled those documents, because that was the fastest, simplest and most efficient way. He does not know who the author of the second article from 31.1.2023 is. Links to the article itself are sometimes placed by the journalist, sometimes by the editor-in-chief, and sometimes by the system itself according to keywords. Denials were published at the request of the prosecutor and at the request of her husband.9. From the testimony of witness ČG, it essentially follows that she is the author of the article from 11.1.2023, while she is not the author of the article from 31.1.2023, that is, her colleague ZG. She decided to write about the subject because Dinamo employees contacted her and she believed that there was public interest in the topic. She obtained the information that was published through anonymous sources who were employed by Dinamo, and also by searching the internet and via the Fin. Info portal. The pay slips themselves were provided to her by Dinamo employees, who sent them to her by email. She did not contact the plaintiff before publishing the article, and she called her husband, but he did not answer. She did not try to contact the plaintiff, because she was mentioned in only one sentence and she did not consider it necessary. The photograph published in the article, which shows the payment to the plaintiff, was published in the form in which she received it from the Dinamo source. Namely, when she received it by email, the surnames and account numbers of other individuals had already been blacked out. Whether a photo will be edited is a matter of editorial policy, not the author of the article.10. From the testimony of witness SG, it essentially follows that he is the husband of the plaintiff and that the information published about his wife in the article in question is correct. Namely, she was paid a fee according to a service contract and all of this was reported and recorded. However, there was no need to publish her full name and surname in an article that talks about dirty police officers and about extracting money from Dinamo. A lot of people called him when that article was published, and they also called his wife, starting with relatives and friends and so on. His wife is a bank employee and it is important to her what people think of her because she works with people, and now everyone who writes her name and surname reads what is written in this article. His wife was very upset because of this, and their family life also suffered because instead of living their own lives, they only talk about the article in question, and they are not public figures or exposed to the media. He and his wife initiated three proceedings regarding the articles in question, both against the publisher and against the author herself, and a criminal complaint was filed. As for the publication of the denial, one denial was published upon multiple requests, namely upon the wife’s request and his request for correction. It was published after two weeks, but it was not continuously available on the internet, namely it was available for one day and then it would disappear again, and they were further upset by the fact that when the second article was published on 31.1.2023. there was a link below that article to the first article from 11.1.2023. and not to the denial.11. The plaintiff’s statement essentially shows that she agrees with her husband’s statement. She understood the article in question as if the phrase dirty police officer referred to her husband, and that is how other people understood it. The moment the article was published, she became visibly distraught and started receiving various calls from all sides, her parents were afraid for their grandchildren, and her older child, 19, and her middle child, 12, were very upset. She is bothered by the fact that her name and surname were published in the article, which violated her privacy. Namely, in addition to her regular job, she asked her employer for permission to work part-time at Dinamo events, cutting pastries and selling drinks, for which she received permission. Incidentally, the company GKN d.o.o. is named after the initials of their three children’s names. They still feel the consequences of the publication in question today, so when her daughter enters her name into a search engine, that article immediately appears in which her mother is linked to withdrawing money from Dinamo. The company GKN d.o.o. is owned by her husband, while Plavi korner employs people at various events under a contract of employment. Every time she says her name and surname, she remembers this article and thinks about whether the person she is talking to has read that article and whether they associate her with it. She works in a financial institution with people who should trust her, because she handles their finances, and she has such a stain because of the publication in question, which is a great burden on her. As for the denial, she was not compensated for the damage, given that everything her husband said was related to the denial, and that denial was just additional stress for her.12. From the testimony of witness ZG, it essentially follows that she is the author of the article that was published on 31.1.2023. She does not know why there was a link under that article only to the previous article, and not to the published denial. Normally, it is the practice to have a link under an article to an article that was previously written on the same topic, but it is also the practice to link to the published correction. The journalist places these links under the article, and the editorial board reviews the text of that publication. When she placed a link under the article from 31.1.2023. did not check the article dated 11.1.2023. to which the link referred. As for the text of the article dated 31.1.2023., she received information from the editorial office that she had just published.13. The statements were accepted, since they do not contain contradictions within themselves or with each other, nor with other evidence presented.14. Based on such an assessment of the evidence, it was determined that the information published in the article in question dated 11 January 2023, which refers to the plaintiff (that she is on the payroll of Plavi Korner) is not untrue, while the article dated 31 January 2023 does not even mention her.15. As for the publication of the plaintiff’s personal data, namely her name, surname, account number and the amount and date of payment of the fee, the court conducted a proportionality test, and since in that part the defendant refers to freedom of expression and public interest, and the plaintiff to the privacy of personal and family life and the protection of personal data.16. Namely, the provision of Art. Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette No. 56/90, 135/97, 08/98, 113/00, 124/00, 28/01, 41/01, 55/01, 76/10, 85/10, 05/14, consolidated text; hereinafter referred to as the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia) stipulates that everyone is guaranteed respect for and legal protection of their personal and family life, dignity, reputation and honour, while Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia stipulates that everyone is guaranteed the security and confidentiality of personal data. Without the consent of the data subject, personal data may be collected, processed and used only under the conditions specified by law, and paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that the Act regulates data protection and supervision over the operation of information systems in the state, and paragraph 3 of the same article stipulates that the use of personal data contrary to the established purpose of their collection is prohibited.17. Given that, on the one hand, it is a question of the protection of the plaintiff’s personal and family life, and on the other hand, of freedom of expression, i.e. two conflicting rights, it is necessary to conduct a proportionality test and examine the legitimacy of the objectives of interference with the right to freedom of expression, which are listed in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Official Gazette – International Treaties, Nos. 18/97, 6/99, 14/02, 13/03, 9/05, 1/06, 2/10 and 13/17, hereinafter: the Convention). Namely, when the publication of some information affects the rights of others, this conflict must be resolved by weighing the relevant factors relating to the two protected values: on the one hand, the right to freedom of expression and, on the other hand, the right to respect for the private life of others (Art.8 of the Convention). In order to ensure consistency and avoid discretionary decision-making when answering the question of which of the conflicting rights prevails in a particular case and which of them needs to be protected, the assessment is made according to the following circumstances: – contribution to the public interest debate, – the extent to which the person in question is known to the public and what is the content of the statements made, – the previous conduct of the person to whom the statement relates, – the methods of gathering information and their verifiability, – the content, form and consequences of the information published and – the seriousness of the sanction imposed and the chilling effect – as in various judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the judgments of the Grand Chamber (Perincek v. Switzerland [GC], § 198; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], §§ 83-84; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], §§ 104-107).17.1. As far as the public interest is concerned, in the specific case, the court considers that there is no legitimate public interest in publishing the plaintiff’s personal data – data on her name, surname, amount of fees, date of payment of fees and her bank account number. Namely, it is clear that there is a legitimate public interest related to the financial operations of the Dinamo club, given that the club is also financed with public money; however, the fact that there is a legitimate public interest in a certain topic does not mean that the public interest extends to all the information published in that article. Each individual piece of published information can be an independent subject of examination as to whether or not there is a legitimate public interest in it. Thus, in the specific case, although the main topic of the article relates to an issue of legitimate public interest, in relation to the published personal data of the plaintiff, it is assessed that such an interest does not exist, because the information on her bank account number and her name and surname do not contribute to the discussion on the issue of the Dinamo club’s financing or on the issue of how the club spends money. That this is so is also evident from the fact that such data of other persons who worked part-time on that payroll were blacked out, so it is obvious that both the defendant and the source who forwarded that payroll to him were aware that this was data that needed to be protected, and that it was not data that was relevant to the topic of the article.17.2. Furthermore, it was assessed that in relation to the plaintiff, this was a person who was not previously known to the public in any way, nor had she been exposed to the media in any way, nor had she made any statements to the public.17.3. As for the method of collecting information and its verifiability, it is clear from all the statements that the defendant did not even try to contact the plaintiff and ask her whether she agreed to such personal data of hers being published in the article.17.4. Also, with regard to the content, form and consequences of the information published, whenever it concerns information relating to the private life of another person, journalists should, to the extent possible, take into account the impact of the information and images to be published before they are published (J and DG Associés v. France [GC], § 140). In the present case, these are consequences that could have been foreseen, given that the allegations are defamatory, given that the image of the pay slip was published as part of an article on corrupt and nepotistic practices within the Dinamo club.17.5. As regards the measure sought by the action in the present case and the possible deterrent effect, it should be noted that the plaintiff in these proceedings is seeking damages and the publication of a final judgment in the same or an equivalent place, which does not constitute a deterrent effect on the defendant in relation to his media activities and freedom of expression.18. The proportionality test therefore shows that the plaintiff’s right to privacy of personal and family life is of greater importance than the defendant’s right to freedom of expression, given that the disclosure of personal data of a person who has not been publicly exposed in any way, and that such data is not of any interest to the public nor does it inform the public about any important fact; while, on the other hand, the publication of such data causes damage to the plaintiff in the form of a violation of her personal and family life and a violation of her privacy.19. The provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Media Act (Official Gazette No. 59/2004, 84/2011, 81/2013, 114/2022, hereinafter: the Media Act) stipulate that every person has the right to protection of privacy, dignity, reputation and honour. A person performing a public service or duty has the right to protection of privacy, except in cases related to the public service or duty performed by the person. A person who, by his or her statements, conduct and other acts relating to his or her personal or family life, attracts public attention cannot claim the same level of privacy protection as other citizens. There is no violation of the right to privacy protection if, with regard to the information, a justified public interest prevails over the protection of privacy in relation to the journalist’s activity or to the information.19. Thus, on the basis of the evidentiary procedure, it was established that the publication of the information in question violated the plaintiff’s personality rights, namely the right to personal and family life, and that there was no justified public interest in the above, nor did it contribute to a debate in the public interest. Personality rights are contained in Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Civil Obligations Act (Official Gazette, No. 35/05, 41/08, 125/11, 78/15 and 29/18, hereinafter: the ZOO). Personality rights are understood to mean the rights to life, physical and mental health, reputation, honour, dignity, name, privacy of personal and family life, freedom, etc.20. The published information is of such a nature that its publication violates the right to privacy of personal and family life; while the fact that the plaintiff’s stated rights were violated also results from her statement in which she states that at the moment the article was published she became visibly distracted and began to receive various calls from all sides, her parents were afraid for her grandchildren and her older child of 19 years and middle child of 12 years were very upset, that she is bothered by the fact that her name and surname were published in that article and that her privacy was violated, and that every time she says her name and surname she remembers this article and thinks whether the person she is talking to has read that article and whether it associates her with it, she works in a financial institution with people who should trust her, because she handles their finances, and she has such a stain because of the publication in question, which is a great burden on her.21. The damage suffered by the plaintiff represents a violation of the right to privacy, as one of the forms of damage (Article 1046 of the Civil Obligations Act – Official Gazette, No. 35/05, 41/08 and 78/15, hereinafter: the ZOO), which is defined in the provision of Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the ZOO, which, among other things, includes the right to privacy of personal and family life.22. Having assessed the plaintiff’s statement, as well as having read the salary list published as part of the article in question, the court assessed that this was information that was likely to violate the plaintiff’s right to privacy of personal and family life, given that it published personal data without any justified public interest.23. Pursuant to the provision of Article 1100 of the ZOO stipulates that the court shall award fair compensation if it finds that the gravity of the injury and the circumstances of the case justify it, taking into account the severity and duration of the mental suffering and the purpose for which the compensation serves, but also that it does not favour aspirations that are incompatible with its nature and social purpose.24. The court, in view of the previous findings, assessed that the gravity of the violation of the plaintiff’s personality rights due to the publication of the disputed information justifies the award of fair compensation in the amount of EUR 3,000.00, applying the provisions of Art. 1100 of the ZOO, while for the remaining part in the amount of EUR 3,636.14 the claim was rejected as being set too high, all as in the operative part of this judgment and with default interest that runs on the awarded amount from the date of filing the claim for damages in accordance with the provisions of Art. 1103 of the ZOO.25. As regards the request for publication of the final first-instance and second-instance judgments in the same or equivalent place, at the session of the Civil Department of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia held on 18 December 2017, the legal understanding was taken that the publication of the final judgment in the press is a permitted form of redress for non-pecuniary damage to the injured party in proceedings to which the provisions of the ZM apply. However, in these proceedings it was established that the damage to the plaintiff was caused precisely by the publication of her personal data, therefore, this is not a matter of compensation for damage due to the publication of incorrect or untrue information. Given that the publication in question violated the plaintiff’s right to privacy of her personal and family life, in this specific case the publication of the final judgment does not represent an adequate form of redress for the damage, because such publication in the media re-publishes the plaintiff’s personal data, the publication of which was the cause of the violation. Therefore, in that part, the request was rejected as partially unfounded in the manner specified under point II. of the operative part of the judgment.26. The decision on the costs of the proceedings is based on the provisions of Art. 154, paragraphs 2 and 155 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff was awarded the cost of drafting the claim for damages and the lawsuit in the amount of 100 points for each (Tbr. 7/1 of the Tariff on fees and reimbursement of expenses for the work of attorneys – “Narodne novine” number: 138/23 – hereinafter referred to as the Tariff), the cost of drafting the submission of 23.10.2023 in the amount of 100 points for each (Tbr. 8/1 of the Tariff) and the cost of representation by attorney at the hearings held on 3.11.2023., 12.2.2024., 11.9.2024. and 12.11.2025. in the amount of 100 points for each hearing (Tbr 9 point 1 of the Tariff), as well as representation at the hearing for publication in the amount of 50 points (Tbr. 9/3 of the Tariff), which amounts to a total of 750 points, or, with the value of a point of 2.00 Eur (Tbr. 50 of the Tariff) and increased by the corresponding value added tax (Tbr. 42 of the Tariff), amounts to 1,875.00 Eur and fees for the lawsuit and the judgment in the total amount of 225.62 Eur, amounts to 2,100.62 Eur. Given that the plaintiff succeeded in terms of merits and amount with a ratio of 50%, the defendant is obliged to compensate her in that ratio for the costs of the procedure that were necessary for conducting the litigation, so the defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for costs in the amount of 1,050.31 Eur. The plaintiff was not awarded the costs of the submissions of 11.3.2025. and 28.4.2025., because they were not necessary for the conduct of the proceedings.27. The plaintiff was also awarded default interest on the awarded costs of the proceedings in accordance with the provision of Article 151, paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.In Zagreb, 16 January 2026.Judge: Ela Mišura StopferINSTRUCTIONS ON LEGAL REMEDY:An appeal against this judgment is permitted within 15 days, which period is calculated:- from the date of the hearing at which the judgment is announced, if the party was duly notified of the hearing for announcement, regardless of whether he or she attended it, or – from the date of receipt of the transcript of the judgment, if the party was not duly notified of the hearing at which the judgment was announced.The appeal shall be submitted in writing, in four identical copies, through this court to the county court.DNA:1. Plaintiff in full, with a fee of 112.81 EUR for the lawsuit and a judgment of 112.81 EUR2. Defendant in full
</pre>