CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 July 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60183/17 Sterian PRICOPE against Romania lodged on 4 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil defamation proceedings instituted against the applicant in connection with his criticism of the plaintiff’s alleged corrupt economic activities which the applicant believed contributed to the downfall of the local automobile industry. The applicant was a contributor to local press and television, and published a series of articles about the plaintiff in the local press. By a final decision of 8 February 2017 of the Piteşti Court of Appeal, the applicant was ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for having tarnished the plaintiff’s reputation. In its decision, the court considered, among other things, that the applicant could not be offered the protection of Article 10 of the Convention, as he was not a professional journalist. The applicant complained of violations of Articles 6, 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention in relation to these facts. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the finding of the applicant’s liability in defamation (see Papaianopol v. Romania , no.   17590/02, 6   March 2010)?