CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 septembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   456 28.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SABOU AND PIRCALAB v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Sabou and Pîrcălab v. Romania (application no. 46572/99).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: -           a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; -           a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the Convention in respect of Mr Sabou; and -           a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of Mr Sabou.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Pîrcălab 1,582.42 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and awarded Mr Sabou EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded them EUR   4,000 jointly for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Dan Corneliu Sabou and Călin Dan Pîrcălab, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1968 respectively and live in Baia Mare (Romania). They are reporters on a local newspaper “ Ziua de Nord-Vest ”.   In April 1997 the newspaper published a series of articles written by both journalists on the allegedly unlawful acquisition of land by the mother of the President of the Baie Mare District Court. The first article condemned this acquisition, claiming that it had taken place at the expense of farmers from the Ulmeni municipality. The following articles included allegations that the judge had allegedly resorted to threats and sought to use forged documents to dispossess a neighbour.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants after the judge filed a complaint for criminal defamation. In a judgment of 15 December 1997 Năsăud District Court convicted the applicants of the charges against them. It sentenced Mr Sabou to 10 months’ imprisonment and also banned him from exercising his profession and suspended his parental and electoral rights for the duration of his imprisonment. In addition, the court fined Mr Pîrcălab 500,000 Romanian leis (ROL) (EUR 62), which was suspended, and ordered the applicants, jointly and severally with the newspaper, to pay the judge ROL 30 million (EUR 1,582.42).   An appeal lodged by the applicants was dismissed on 3 April 1998 by Bristriţa Năsăud Regional Court on the ground that the impugned articles did not set out the truth and that it was clear that the reporters had not acted in good faith or with a view to protecting certain moral values in society, but had sought to attack the judge’s reputation.   On 20 August 1998 Mr Sabou was imprisoned. At the time, he was living with his partner and two of their children. Four days later, his partner gave birth. Mr Sabou was released on 5 October 1998 after his request for a stay of execution was granted. He received a presidential pardon on 19 January 1999.   In May 2002 the newspaper paid the judge the sum she had been awarded by the courts. Mr Pîrcălab later repaid this sum in full through monthly deductions from his salary.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 September 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 2 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants argued that their convictions had violated their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Sabou also alleged that the ban on his parental rights had infringed his right to respect for his family life, in breach of Article 8. He further complained under Article 13 of a lack of an effective remedy enabling him to assert his right to respect for his family life. Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that the impugned articles concerned topics of general interest which were particularly relevant to Romanian society, namely the process of land restitution and alleged corruption among senior officials in the administration.   The applicants’ allegations that the judge had committed unlawful acts were admittedly serious, but had a basis in fact. There was nothing to prove that the facts described were totally false and that they served to foster a campaign of criminal defamation against the judge. Furthermore, the behaviour and attitudes which had been called into question concerned her status as judge rather than aspects of her private life.   The Court noted that, on appeal, the evidence submitted by the applicants had not been examined by the court. Given that the applicants had attempted to contact the judge and that they had then questioned the Prefect and presented the latter’s position, the Court considered that there was also no reason to doubt their good faith. As to the sentences imposed, the Court found them particularly harsh: Mr Sabou, sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, had spent 45 days in prison and Mr Pîrcălab had been ordered to pay a criminal fine. Furthermore, both men had been ordered to pay damages amounting to 12 times the average monthly salary in Romania.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicants’ convictions had been disproportionate in comparison to the legitimate aim pursued and that the national authorities had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify them. Consequently, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 8   The Court pointed out that the child’s interest had to take precedence over all other considerations and that only particularly unworthy behaviour could justify a person being deprived of his or her parental rights in the child’s best interests.   The offence for which Mr Sabou had been convicted was completely unrelated to questions of parental responsibility and at no time had any allegation been made concerning a lack of care on his part or ill-treatment of his children. Under Romanian law, the ban on exercising parental rights was an ancillary penalty which was imposed automatically on any person who served a prison sentence, without the supervision of the courts and without taking account of the type of offence and the child’s interests. Accordingly, the ban represented a moral reprimand aimed at punishing the convicted person rather than a child-protection measure.      Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Article 13 taken together with Article 8   The Court emphasised that, under Romanian law, the removal of parental responsibility was a statutory measure that was automatically imposed as an ancillary penalty whenever a person served a prison sentence. With regard to the Romanian Government’s argument that Mr Sabou could have raised the objection that the law in question was unconstitutional, the Court pointed out that the Constitutional Court had found the relevant provision to be compatible with the Constitution and had ruled that the introduction of ancillary penalties was a matter of criminal policy for Parliament to decide.   In those circumstances, the possibility of raising an objection of unconstitutionality did not represent an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the complaint under Article 8. The Court accordingly concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.