CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2022

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 February 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56812/17 Alexandre Victor GAETAN against Romania lodged on 31 July 2017 communicated on 4 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by a final judgment of 16 February 2017 (available to the parties on 27 March 2017), delivered by the Cluj Court of Appeal, of a general tort law action brought by the applicant against three   journalists and the companies owning the local newspapers for publishing on 16 November 2009, 22 November 2009 and 28 June 2011 respectively three allegedly defamatory articles concerning the applicant. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained about a breach of his right to reputation because the domestic courts failed to protect his aforementioned right and assessed the circumstances of the case wrongly. 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 articles in question (see Pfeifer v. Austria , no. 12556/03, § 35, 15   November 2007; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §   83, 7   February 2012; and Petrie v. Italy , no. 25322/12, §   39, 18   May 2017)?   2.     If so, was that interference justified under Article 8   §   2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic judicial authorities adequately put in balance, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law, the applicant’s right for respect for private life and the defendants’ right to freedom of expression (see Axel Springer AG , cited above, §§   89-95, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §   93, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?