CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 112 October 2008 Petrina v. Romania - 78060/01 Judgment 14.10.2008 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Allegations in satirical magazine that politician had collaborated with former Communist repressive regime: violation   Facts : The applicant, a politician, was alleged to have been a Securitate agent in a television programme on a bill relating to access to information stored in the archives of the former State security services (“the Securitate ”) and two subsequent articles in a humorous magazine. He lodged two criminal complaints against the journalists concerned for insulting remarks and defamation. The two journalists were acquitted, the first because the impugned remarks were general and vague, which precluded criminal liability in the absence of intent, and the second because no precise, detailed allegations had been made against the applicant in the magazine, which had always had a positive effect on society. A certificate issued four years later by the national council set up to examine the Securitate archives stated that the applicant was not listed as having collaborated with that organisation. Law : The debate was highly important for Romanian society as collaboration by politicians with the Securitate was a highly sensitive social and moral issue in the Romanian historical context. However, despite the satirical character of the magazine, the articles in question had been liable to offend the applicant, as there was no evidence that he had ever belonged to that organisation. The message they contained was clear and direct, with no ironic or humorous note whatsoever. The impugned remarks made accusations that directly concerned the applicant in his personal, not professional, capacity. Accordingly, this was not a case of journalists indulging in the measure of exaggeration or provocation they were allowed in the context of press freedom. Reality had been misrepresented, without any factual basis. The journalists had overstepped acceptable bounds by accusing the applicant, at a time when there was no legislative framework allowing the public access to Securitate files, of having belonged to a group that had used repression and terror to help the former regime subjugate political opponents. In these   circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that the reasons given by the domestic courts for protecting freedom of expression were sufficient to take precedence over the applicant’s reputation. They had accordingly failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. See Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03, 15   November 2007), Information Note no.102.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes