CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 February 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 26354/15 Dan COSTE against Romania lodged on 20 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the sentence imposed on the applicant, a journalist, following the final judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 23 October 2014 (available to the applicant on 21 April 2015), for a press article published by him in a national newspaper about a senior editor and presenter of the national public radio station and her use of forged documents in order to gain property rights over nationalised immovable property which had not been owned by her predecessors. In particular, the applicant argued that the sentence imposed on him to pay civil damages, its severity, and the failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision amounted to a breach of his freedom of expression. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012)?