CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 October 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 2156/16 Lucian-Adrian UNGUR against Romania lodged on 22 December 2015 communicated on 16 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by a final judgment of the Cluj Court of Appeal of 25   June 2015 of an action brought by the applicant against a journalist and the company owning a local online newspaper ( Bistriţeanul.ro ). The applicant had brought the action under general tort law complaining of the publication, on 27 January 2012, of an allegedly defamatory article entitled “ The Lucky Hungarian wants to buy our silence ” ( Unguru Bulan vrea să ne cumpere tăcerea ). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained about a breach of his rights to honour and private life because the domestic courts failed to protect his aforementioned rights, assessed the circumstances of the case wrongly and failed to strike a proper balance between the opposing interests at stake. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the content of the article in question?   2.     If so, was that interference justified under Article 8   §   2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic judicial authorities adequately balance, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law, the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and the defendants’ right to freedom of expression?