CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2024

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 February 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5218/18 Mariana-Aurore RĂDULESCU against Romania lodged on 17 January 2018 communicated on 30 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of defamation. The applicant was the chief accountant of a large museum in Sibiu since 2002. According to her, she has never been disciplined or sanctioned by her superiors until the arrival of a new manager in 2015. After that she started experiencing serious difficulties in her relations with the latter which resulted in her receiving disciplinary sanctions on several occasions and culminated with her dismissal on account of the sanctions received. On one occasion the applicant lodged a disciplinary complaint against her superior alleging that he had used foul language in a conversation with her. The complaint was dismissed by the disciplinary board of the museum on the ground that the manager had been appointed by the Ministry of Culture and could not be held liable by the museum’s disciplinary board. On another occasion, the applicant was sanctioned because she had been absent during working hours on account of her attending a court hearing in which the matter of her previous sanctioning was being examined. It was imputed to her that she had not informed her employer in writing but only verbally about the absence. The applicant also lodged several criminal complaints concerning her alleged harassment and intimidation resulting in the initiation of criminal investigations in respect of the superior. On 27 April 2016 the applicant staged a solo protest in front of the museum, wearing a banner containing the following inscription: “I am protesting against the abuses committed in my respect by Mr S.B.L., the head of the museum, which consisted of the following repeated actions: insulting, discreditation, injustice, discrimination, isolation, attempts of intimidation and persecution. He created an unhealthy, degrading and destructive working environment [...].” She also gave an interview to a local newspaper in which she related the same accusations in respect of her superior. As a result of the above, the applicant’s superior initiated civil defamation proceedings which ended with a final judgment of the Sibiu Regional Court of 17 July 2017 finding the applicant guilty of defamation and ordering her to pay him compensation and publish the operative part of its judgment in the press. In reaching their decisions, the courts declared inadmissible the testimonies of two witnesses called by the applicant on the ground that, in their capacity as employees of the museum, they also had tense relations with the head of the museum. The courts thus considered that the applicant had failed to prove the veracity of the statements of facts made by her and that her value judgments had not had sufficient factual basis. The applicant complains that the outcome of the proceedings amounted to a breach of her right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 (see Ponta v. Romania , no. 44652/18, § 62, 14 June 2022; and Morice v. France [GC], no.   29369/10, § 126, ECHR 2015)?   The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.