As a part of its efforts to enhance national implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the action “Strengthening human rights protection in Serbia” has been supporting placements of Serbian legal professionals in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

For Milan Bajić and Nikola Djekić, legal advisers at Serbia’s Supreme and Constitutional Courts, a six-month placement at the ECtHR in Strasbourg provided a unique insight into how European legal principles are interpreted at the highest level. By closely engaging with the Court’s rulings on freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and other fundamental issues, the advisers have not only expanded their knowledge of the Convention system, but also, upon their return, shared their experiences within Serbia’s judiciary.

Milan emphasised how the placement in Strasbourg deepened his understanding of comparative law. Relying on his research, judges from the Supreme Court could draw on broader jurisprudential trends when evaluating cases, thereby enhancing the quality and coherence of domestic rulings. “Judges are experienced professionals who quickly grasp the different options available to them,” he says. “But they cannot regularly follow the latest jurisprudence from the ECtHR, and they need to be provided with key highlights.”

In this regard, the ECHR Knowledge Sharing Platform serves as a valuable tool, offering the Supreme Court access to the latest developments in ECtHR case-law and other jurisprudence. Each week, Milan and his colleagues from the Case Law Department of the Supreme Court select the most significant cases and circulate them to the Criminal and Civil Departments, allowing judges to request further clarification or a more detailed analysis.

In September 2025, twelve judges of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Department attended an in-house training on Article 6 of the ECHR, covering recent ECtHR case-law on the right to defence, presumption of innocence, circumstantial evidence, and other issues that Milan presented.

Milan has also brought lessons from Strasbourg directly into the Judicial Academy. Over two semesters, from September 2024 to June 2025, the XII generation of Judicial Academy trainees gained a thorough understanding of four articles of the Convention through presentations on relevant jurisprudence and interactive case studies on the application of European standards during the training seminars which the action “Strengthening human rights protection in Serbia” organised together with the Judicial Academy. “The trainees’ response was very positive,” Milan explains. “I provided them with a short yet comprehensive overview of ECtHR case-law, which will serve as a reliable reference for them as future judges.”

“I attended a three-month training in Strasbourg myself,” he adds. “The placement helped me understand internal Court procedures – for example, how committees operate, the role of a single judge, and the functioning of the fast-track procedure.” Something from which young legal professionals at the Judicial Academy could certainly benefit.

Milan’s colleague from the Constitutional Court, Nikola, also spent six months in Strasbourg, observing first-hand how carefully each case is considered and how much attention is given to the reasoning behind every decision. “During my time at the ECtHR, I became familiar with case-law showing that a violation of a right is examined even when the applicant has suffered no significant harm,” he says. Nikola drafted Single Judge Notes and, for cases reviewed by a panel of three judges, Committee Notes. This work taught him to clearly and precisely explain alleged rights violations, focus on what truly matters, and navigate complex cases.

At the Constitutional Court of Serbia, Nikola contributed upon his return from Strasbourg to improving the drafting of decisions. “For the first time, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property in the context of pensions, stressing that the authorities’ decisions had effectively terminated the applicant’s entitlement to a pension that had been recognised before,” he recalls, describing a case in which a pensioner’s rights had been cut, prompting the Court to assess the protection of property rights in accordance with ECtHR jurisprudence. His work also strengthened the Court’s assessment of the proportionality of restrictions on freedom of assembly.

After his return, Nikola became a go-to adviser for colleagues dealing with complex issues. “I answered questions from my colleagues concerning the confiscation of property as a security measure, the admissibility of applicants, judicial protection for whistle-blowers, the prohibition of discrimination, and many others,” he says. He shared his knowledge widely, circulating training materials and drawing on insights gained from his contacts at the ECtHR.

These are still an important resource in his work today. “I exchange with my colleagues at the ECtHR useful information on cases and jurisprudence,” he explains. For Nikola, the placement in Strasbourg was a valuable professional experience that gave him the tools to support the Constitutional Court in aligning more closely with European human rights standards.

The action “Strengthening human rights protection in Serbia“ is part of the joint European Union and Council of Europe programme “Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Türkiye”.

Dragan Sekulovski, Executive Director of the Association of Journalists of North Macedonia, has long been one of the leading voices on journalists’ safety in the Western Balkans. Through his role with the Council of Europe Division for Cooperation on Freedom of Expression, in particular under the EU and Council of Europe joint programme « Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Turkiye », he has collaborated with journalists, judges, prosecutors, police officers, and lawyers across the region, translating international standards into practical guidance. In this interview, he shares insights on shared challenges, regional best practices, and what it takes to protect journalists effectively.

How would you compare the key challenges journalists face in different Beneficiaries in the region? Are there specific issues that particularly stand out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, or other Beneficiaries where you have worked?

In most Western Balkan countries, journalists face very similar structural problems: political pressure, SLAPPs and other abusive legal actions, difficult access to public information, and a high level of economic vulnerability of newsrooms and freelancers. This combination creates fertile ground for self-censorship.

In North Macedonia, the safety environment has improved compared to a decade ago and this is noted by Reporters Without Border latest index as well (42nd position for 2025), but this progress is fragile. Physical attacks are less frequent, yet verbal threats, smear campaigns and online harassment- often linked to political actors or organised online groups- still create constant pressure. An additional problem is often the slow and sometimes incomplete institutional response to reported attacks, which can reinforce a sense of impunity and discourage journalists from reporting threats.

Across the region, whether in North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina or neighboring countries, the pattern is similar: journalists are most at risk when they investigate corruption, abuse of power, or sensitive issues for political party actors. The long-term challenge is to build an environment where they can work freely, without fear, backed by clear institutional guarantees for their safety and independence.

In your work with prosecutors, police officers, judges, and lawyers across the region, you often link Council of Europe standards with real-life examples from practice. How can legal professionals most effectively be made to understand journalists’ safety, and why is this “translating role” between media and the judiciary so important?

In my experience, legal professionals can most effectively protect journalists when they have a clear and coherent legal framework that reflects Council of Europe standards and that they can rely on in daily practice. This is why in 2023 we worked in North Macedonia on amendments to the Criminal Code so that an attack on a journalist is treated in a similar way as an attack on an official. Such solutions send a strong signal: an attack on a journalist is not just an attack on an individual, but an attack on the public’s right to be informed.

But good laws are only the first step. Judges, prosecutors, police officers and lawyers also need to understand the realities of journalistic work – the risks, pressures, deadlines and the public-interest role of the media. Together with the Council of Europe, we therefore organise joint trainings and discussions where we connect standards with concrete cases from the region and let journalists and legal professionals speak to each other directly. This “translating role” between the media community and the judiciary is crucial, because once there is mutual understanding and trust, institutions are far more likely to react quickly, consistently and effectively to threats against journalists.

The Council of Europe Training Programme on countering the use of SLAPPs, which you used in training sessions, was developed as a regional tool. From your experience, how much do such standardised programs contribute to a more consistent approach to protecting journalists across the Western Balkans?

Standardised programmes like the Council of Europe Training Programme on countering the use of SLAPPs are very useful because they create a common language and reference point for journalists’ safety across the Western Balkans. When trainers in different countries work with the same standards and structure, it becomes easier to compare practices, identify gaps, and push for similar levels of protection. In that sense, the Council of Europe action on Freedom of Expression clearly contributes to a more consistent and more professional approach across the region.

At the same time, the real impact comes when this framework is brought to life and adapted to each group. In my trainings, we always enrich the curriculum with concrete cases from the country where we work, scenario-based discussions, and role-play exercises – for example simulating how a journalist reports a threat, or how a prosecutor or police officer should react. This makes the content more dynamic and relevant, and participants repeatedly give feedback that these practical exercises help them understand not only the standards on paper, but also how to apply them in real situations.

During trainings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you focused specifically on violence against female journalists, including digital abuse. What forms of gender-based violence do female journalists most often report in the region, and what can institutions do to encourage reporting and ensure better protection?

In the region, women journalists most often report online, gender-based abuse: sexualised insults, threats of rape or physical violence, attacks on their appearance, and smear campaigns that try to discredit them as professionals by targeting them as women, mothers or partners. Very often, these attacks spill over into doxxing, stalking and threats against family members, which creates additional fear and pressure to withdraw from public debate. Unfortunately, the line between online and offline is very thin – what starts as a “comment” can quickly turn into real-life intimidation.

The situation is very similar in North Macedonia. We even have a specific protocol within the Ministry of Interior together with the Association of journalists for the protection of women journalists on line, which is a positive step on paper. However, the follow-up is often weak. Institutions too frequently justify inaction by saying that large social media platforms (Meta, X and others) do not fully cooperate with authorities because North Macedonia, among with other WB countries, is still only a candidate country for the EU and they are not under the same formal obligations as in EU member states. While this is a real obstacle, it cannot be an excuse for passivity and to certain point creates discrimination.

Given your long-standing engagement in responding to breaches of journalists’ safety, what do you consider the key elements of a sustainable, multi-sectoral protection model? Can a successful example from one Beneficiary be effectively transferred to other Beneficiaries in the region, and if so- which example would you highlight?

A sustainable protection model depends on a whole chain of actors working together. It requires quality laws aligned with Council of Europe standards and acts by the EU Parliament, journalists who are informed and willing to report threats, strong professional associations providing legal and advocacy support, and police and judiciary with integrity and specialised knowledge. These elements need to be linked through clear protocols, regular dialogue and joint trainings.

In the end, on a personal note, protecting journalists is not an act of solidarity with a profession, but a constitutional duty to protect the public interest and every citizen’s right to know.