The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)

Here an attempt is made to find a legal solution to a principle problem together with analysis of a concrete example. There is confrontation between two indisputable but partially mutually exclusive rights. On the one hand, freedom of speech privately and /or publicly and this opinion need not be at...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Blanka Kačer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu 2018-01-01
Series:Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/293131
id doaj-1cd3a0a931524e58b0d75d3084b4e07e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1cd3a0a931524e58b0d75d3084b4e07e2020-11-24T20:58:08ZengPravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu0584-90631847-04592018-01-01552369384The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)Blanka KačerHere an attempt is made to find a legal solution to a principle problem together with analysis of a concrete example. There is confrontation between two indisputable but partially mutually exclusive rights. On the one hand, freedom of speech privately and /or publicly and this opinion need not be at all positive, and on the other hand there is every individual’s right to be free of any insult both private and public including expressing one’s own opinion which offends another. It is necessary to establish the limit of illegality. This depends on which right takes precedence. This involves an actual event in which various female tennis players publicly protested, and in this way put pressure on tournament organizers against inviting to the tournament a female tennis player who had just finished “serving” her punishment of a 15 month ban on playing at tournaments. This punishment was the result of her being caught under inspection of her as an athlete and whether she had consumed some substances from the list of forbidden substances. After thorough analysis, it was concluded that a mild display of opinion was involved which did not in any way offend another’s honour nor threaten or damage another’s personality rights. However, if this were exaggerated, then the limit has been violated– a line has been crossed which divides illegal from legal behaviour. In this second case, if other legal conditions are met, there is a case for damages lability. In the first instance, because cumulative fulfilment of all conditions is necessary, no civil damages liability exists.http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/293131legal securityrule of lawequality in the eyes of the lawdamagescivil liability
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Blanka Kačer
spellingShingle Blanka Kačer
The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)
Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu
legal security
rule of law
equality in the eyes of the law
damages
civil liability
author_facet Blanka Kačer
author_sort Blanka Kačer
title The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)
title_short The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)
title_full The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)
title_fullStr The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)
title_full_unstemmed The Marija Šarapova Case (related to the Croatian legal framework on damages liability)
title_sort marija šarapova case (related to the croatian legal framework on damages liability)
publisher Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu
series Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu
issn 0584-9063
1847-0459
publishDate 2018-01-01
description Here an attempt is made to find a legal solution to a principle problem together with analysis of a concrete example. There is confrontation between two indisputable but partially mutually exclusive rights. On the one hand, freedom of speech privately and /or publicly and this opinion need not be at all positive, and on the other hand there is every individual’s right to be free of any insult both private and public including expressing one’s own opinion which offends another. It is necessary to establish the limit of illegality. This depends on which right takes precedence. This involves an actual event in which various female tennis players publicly protested, and in this way put pressure on tournament organizers against inviting to the tournament a female tennis player who had just finished “serving” her punishment of a 15 month ban on playing at tournaments. This punishment was the result of her being caught under inspection of her as an athlete and whether she had consumed some substances from the list of forbidden substances. After thorough analysis, it was concluded that a mild display of opinion was involved which did not in any way offend another’s honour nor threaten or damage another’s personality rights. However, if this were exaggerated, then the limit has been violated– a line has been crossed which divides illegal from legal behaviour. In this second case, if other legal conditions are met, there is a case for damages lability. In the first instance, because cumulative fulfilment of all conditions is necessary, no civil damages liability exists.
topic legal security
rule of law
equality in the eyes of the law
damages
civil liability
url http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/293131
work_keys_str_mv AT blankakacer themarijasarapovacaserelatedtothecroatianlegalframeworkondamagesliability
AT blankakacer marijasarapovacaserelatedtothecroatianlegalframeworkondamagesliability
_version_ 1716786505514483712