CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 octobre 2008

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA9FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   698 7.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BARB v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Barb v. Romania (application no. 5945/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s conviction for defamation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 19.88   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also held that the Romanian State was to pay EUR   1,781 for costs and expenses to the applicant’s lawyer. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ioan Barb, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Călan (Romania).   On 25 November 1999 Mr Barb, a journalist, published in a national newspaper an article entitled “Hunedoara family mounts a 300 million-lei swindle” and sub-titled “The President of the Forum of Germans, P.D., promised 700   jobs in Germany, with no legal basis; 700   people have already been conned”.   In July 2000 the Deva District Court found the applicant guilty of insults and defamation against P.D. He was given a suspended sentence of a fine and ordered to pay damages for non-pecuniary damage.   In September 2000 the County Court quashed the judgment in part, acquitting the applicant of defamation but upholding his sentence of a fine for insults. The County Court found in particular as follows:   “In his article, the applicant showed that the civil party P.D., as chairman of the Forum of Germans, had contacted a number of Romanian and German institutions and private companies providing services for job-seekers, in order to recruit Romanian workers in Germany.   For that purpose, knowledge of the German language being required, he ... had organised German lessons for those workers for which he charged them and had collected the tuition fees. ...   [P.D.] had contacted the German representatives in order to find work for the participants, and hoped that the corresponding legislation would be introduced before the end of the lessons. Consequently, [P.D.] had acted in good faith.   In the article there is, ... a passage entitled “700 people have already been conned”, in which the applicant calculates that P.D. collected 300 million Romanian lei; however, in reality, the number of participants was 244.   The title and content of the article, examined in the light of the evidence in the file, constitute the offence of insults.”   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 March 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Ann Power (Irish), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Barb complained that his conviction for insults had constituted a violation of Article 10.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that the offending article concerned subjects that were in the general interest and were particularly topical for Romanian society, namely unemployment, the possibilities of finding a job abroad and alleged corruption in the administration. It further observed that the applicant’s remarks did not concern aspects of P.D.’s private life but rather his actions in the above-mentioned areas. It moreover found that the activities of P.D. that were criticised by the applicant and that led to his conviction had been strictly confined to this general-interest subject-matter.   In addition, the Court found that the applicant’s allegations amounted to factual statements or value judgments, and that the facts reported by the applicant were not devoid of a sufficient factual basis, apart from the error concerning the number of participants in the classes organised by P.D. However, this error could not in itself lead to the conclusion that the applicant acted in bad faith. Moreover, the domestic courts had never found the applicant to be acting in bad faith in that respect.   The Court further observed that the domestic courts had not explained why the applicant’s actions constituted either or both of the offences in question, simply setting out the facts and directly concluding that he was guilty.   The Court also found that the wording used by the applicant in his article had not been regarded as manifestly abusive either by the injured party or by the domestic courts.   For these reasons, the Court considered that the applicant’s conduct, when examined as a whole, showed that he had acted in good faith and that his remarks had fallen within the acceptable degree of exaggeration and provocation.   Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that the domestic authorities had not provided any pertinent or sufficient reasons to justify it. The interference sustained by the applicant could not therefore be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.