CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2025

.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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } Published on 17 February 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4807/22 ASSOCIATION GRAUR against Romania lodged on 19 January 2022 communicated on 27 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an action in tort for defamation successfully lodged by a university professor against the applicant association for the publication on its website, dedicated to plagiarism, of entries that claimed that the former committed plagiarism and self-plagiarism in few of his books. By a final decision of 22 June 2021, served on the applicant association on 27   August 2021, the Cluj-Napoca Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal on points of law and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts granting the action and ordering the applicant association to publish on its website the first-instance judgment, to annotate the defamatory statements posted, and to pay non-pecuniary damages [530 euros], as well as costs and expenses. The domestic courts rejected the applicant association’s claim that it was against its freedom of expression, as construed by the Court’s case-law, to sanction him for publishing a “value judgment” on a matter of public interest in the absence of a prior decision on plagiarism by the National Council of Ethics ( CNECSDTI, “the Council”) provided for by Law 206/2004 on the good conduct in scientific research, technological development and innovation (“Law 206/2004”). The domestic courts considered that the freedom of expression and the right to inform the public could not justify the applicant association’s approach of attesting such a complex fact as plagiarism on the basis on text comparisons, while the legal proceedings available under Law 206/2004 that referred to the Council had not been used. Countering the applicant association’s defence who referred to its good faith and to the wrongful referral by the courts to proceedings provided by specific regulations governing the research activity, the domestic courts held that in the absence of an official report and decision by the above-mentioned specialized competent bodies, notably the Council, there were doubts as regards the factual basis on which the plagiarism accusations were made by the applicant association. The applicant association complains that the findings of the domestic courts and the outcome of the proceedings amounted to a breach of its right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant association’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ decisions in the defamation proceedings against it?   2.     If so, was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article   10 § 2? In particular, considering the applicant association’s role and mission and the domestic courts’ classification of its allegations, was the approach adopted by the latter in respect of the required standards and burden of proof, particularly in respect of the prerequisite procedure before the Council, in line with the Court’s relevant case-law (see, mutatis mutandis , Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 168, 8   November 2016, Koniuszewski v. Poland , no. 619/12, § 56, 14 June 2016, and Aurelian Oprea v. Romania , no.   12138/08, §§ 66 et seq., 19 January 2016)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant association’s right?   The Government are requested to provide 1) information concerning the rules and procedure before the Council to which Law no. 206/2004 refers (domestically abbreviated as CNECSDTI ) and 2) copies of decisions relevant for the requirement to follow the preliminary proceedings before the Council prior to the publication by third parties of statements/allegations concerning ethical behaviour, such as a plagiarism.