CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 13 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 12889/19 Elena GROZA against Romania lodged on 19 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by a final judgment of 12   September 2018, delivered by the Bacău Court of Appeal, of a general tort law action brought by the applicant against a private party, namely C.B., seeking non-pecuniary damages because C.B. had allegedly stolen her identity, opened a fake Facebook account on her name and posted a photograph and defamatory comments concerning her which were read by her friends and co-workers. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the dismissal by the courts of the proceedings brought by her on the ground that she had failed to prove that C.B. had been the person who had opened the fake Facebook account all the while dismissing her requests for a court order asking Facebook to disclose the identity of the person who had created the account and for testimonial evidence – the only way for her to prove the perpetrator’s identity and the link between the unlawful act committed by C.B. and the damage she suffered – on the ground that this evidence was not necessary for the case, had breached her right to a fair trial, in particular her right of defence and to adduce evidence and present arguments in support of her case. Invoking the same article of the Convention the applicant complained further that the last-instance court had breached her right of defence because it dismissed her lawyer’s application for an adjournment of the last hearing in the case in order for him to be able to attend the hearing and make oral submissions. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that by curtailing unfairly her right of defence and of adducing evidence in the case and by failing to punish the private party responsible for unlawfully using her private information and intruding into her life, the courts had breached her right to private and family life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the equality of arms and the applicant’s right of defence affected in such a way as to render the proceedings as a whole unfair in the sense of Article 6 of the Convention because her requests for a court order asking Facebook to disclose the identity of the person who had created a fake account on her name and for testimonial evidence as well as her lawyer’s application for an adjournment of the last hearing in the case were dismissed by the domestic courts?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention following the dismissal by the domestic courts of the proceedings brought by her against C.B. and the courts’ failure to punish the person allegedly responsible for unlawfully using her private information and intruding into her life? If so, was the applicant afforded adequate protection by the domestic courts for the alleged breach of her right to private and family life?