CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s569C1FED { width:106.24%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s20BF1514 { width:10.16%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sA7BE554F { width:31.1%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s5E50931 { width:17%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sC17AD886 { width:24.74%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s1FF36546 { width:10.16%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD2430CEE { width:31.1%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s228B499B { width:17%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD9907953 { width:24.74%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s191F4330 { width:10.16%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sA54F65BC { width:31.1%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sF8B72396 { width:17%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s99738BF3 { width:24.74%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22953/16 Adina-Isabella STANCU and others against Romania lodged on 21 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the sentence imposed on the applicants - two newspaper editors and the company they were working for - following the final judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 17 June 2015 (available to the applicants on 23 October 2015) for a press article approved by them and published in an online newspaper on 2 August 2012. The article concerned the vice-president of the Superior Council of Magistrates and a judicial error allegedly made by her when she had worked as a superior prosecutor attached to the Bacău Prosecutor’s Office, namely her endorsement of the indictment for murder of a student who was acquitted afterwards by the domestic courts. The applicants argued that the sentence imposed on them to pay civil damages aimed at intimidating them, was not justified by a pressing social need and breached their right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ 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)?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Adina-Isabella STANCU 10/03/1964 Romanian Bucharest 2 Ovidiu Răzvan SAVALIUC 13/10/1967 Romanian Bucharest 3 SOCIETATEA JURINDEX MEDIA S.R.L. Created on 16/06/2010 Romanian Bucharest