CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 février 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   105 15.02.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BOLDEA v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Boldea v. Romania (application no. 19997/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the lack of sufficient reasons for the decisions resulting in the applicant’s conviction; a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) on account of the applicant’s conviction for defamation.   As Mr Boldea did not submit any claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under this head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Marian Boldea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Timişoara (Romania). He is a lecturer at the Robotics and Computer Science Faculty at Timişoara Polytechnic University.   At a meeting of the teaching staff of the Computer Science Department in March 2001 several participants expressed their dissatisfaction at the alleged plagiarism in publications by A.S. and L.P. and noted that they had reproduced a large number of definitions from another person’s doctoral thesis. The applicant was the only participant who considered unreservedly that the scientific publications in question amounted to plagiarism. At the end of the meeting it was concluded that the academic level of publications had dropped, that it was advisable to avoid publishing articles that merely reproduced existing definitions and that new contributions were desirable. The publications by A.S. and L.P, who received a verbal warning, were not classified as plagiarism but were held not to constitute works of scientific reference.   A.S. and L.P. lodged a complaint against the applicant in May 2001, alleging defamation. On 27 November 2001 the Timişoara Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to pay an administrative fine of approximately 20 euros (EUR) and to pay the complainants’ costs, amounting to approximately EUR 80. The court considered that the material facts, the element of intent and the public nature of the offence were established.   The applicant appealed against that judgment, arguing among other things that the court had not given reasons for it. On 22 March 2002 the Timiş County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and an appeal by the complainants.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 May 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that he had not had a fair hearing in that he had been ordered to pay an administrative fine although there had been no relevant evidence and the courts had not addressed the grounds and arguments he had submitted. He also maintained that his penalty for defamation had infringed his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article   10. In addition, he complained that his right to an effective remedy had been infringed because the Timiş County Court had dismissed his appeal against the judgment of 27 November 2001 without examining the arguments he had submitted, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The Court noted that the Court of First Instance had not carried out an interpretation of all the essential elements of an offence or examined the evidence adduced by the applicant. Furthermore, the court that had dealt with the applicant’s appeal had not addressed any of his grounds of appeal, concerning in particular the lack of reasons in the first-instance judgment.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the decisions that had resulted in the applicant’s conviction had not contained sufficient reasons and had thereby deprived him of a fair hearing.   Article 10 of the Convention   The main issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society.   The Court noted in that connection that the applicant’s allegations had been serious in that he had accused two colleagues of plagiarism, but had had a factual basis. The statements in question had been made at a meeting of the teaching staff of the Computer Science Department, following which A.S. and L.P. had received a verbal warning. Accordingly, the applicant’s allegations had not been unfounded and had not been designed to fuel a smear campaign against his colleagues. The Court further noted that the statements in question had not concerned aspects of his colleagues’ private life but conduct relating to their capacity as academics.   Furthermore, the Court noted that at the time there had been a general feeling of dissatisfaction with recent publications produced within the Computer Science Department and that a meeting had been called by the Dean of the Faculty to allow participants to air their views on the matter. This had indisputably been a topic of general interest for the Department. The Court therefore considered that the applicant’s assertions had merely reflected his professional opinion, expressed orally in the course of the meeting.   The Court also took into account the applicant’s conduct during the proceedings against him, which suggested that he had acted in good faith. As regards the Romanian courts, which had not examined the evidence produced by him at the hearings, the Court considered that their failure to give reasons for their decisions had also entailed a violation of Article 10.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the Romanian authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons to justify ordering the applicant to pay an administrative fine and to pay the complainants’ costs, and that the penalty imposed on him had accordingly not met a “pressing social need”. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 13 of the Convention The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13, which concerned the same facts as those examined under Article   6 § 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.     [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.