CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   879 24.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1]   Ieremeiov v. Romania (no. 1) ( application no. 75300/01) Ieremeiov v. Romania (no. 2) (no. 4637/02)     JOURNALIST DID NOT ACT IN BAD FAITH WHEN CRITICISING TWO PUBLIC FIGURES   In both cases: Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgments are available only in English.)     Principal facts   The applicant, Laurian Ieremeiov, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Timişoara (Romania).   A former journalist of the newspaper Ziua de Vest, Mr Ieremeiov’s cases concern two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him for defamation following the publication in June 2000 of articles he had written: the first accusing Doctor P., the Head of Timiş Public Health Service of sexual harassment of an intern; and, the second reporting on rumours about the Mayor of Buziaş’ collaboration with the Securitate (the intelligence service during the communist period).   In both sets of proceedings the courts acquitted the applicant at first instance of defamation but subsequently, quashing those decisions, re-examined the merits of the cases and gave the applicant an administrative fine of 500,000 Romanian lei (ROL) – the equivalent of 116 euros (EUR) – in the first case and ROL 1,000,000 – the equivalent of EUR 233 – in the second case for that offence. He was further ordered to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage (a total of ROL 25,000,000 in both cases – the equivalent of EUR 5,822). The courts found in particular that the applicant had intended to denigrate Dr. P. by publishing his photograph in an article which referred to a “scandal in the medical world” and “sexual blackmail and harassment”. Equally, they found that the applicant had had the same intention with regard to the Mayor of Buziaş when reporting on his alleged collaboration with the Securitate and the fact that the mayor, under surveillance, was on file about the matter.   The applicant was invited to address the court before the end of the hearings in both cases but was not given the opportunity to give evidence or allowed time to prepare and present his defence.     Complaints , procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Ieremeiov alleged in particular that both sets of proceedings brought against him had been unfair and that the resulting fines and compensation he had been ordered to pay were in breach of his right to freedom of expression. He relied on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and   10 (freedom of expression).   The applications were both lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 October 2001.   Judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Firstly, the Court found that, although the penalties – administrative fines – imposed on the applicant had not been severe in either of the defamation cases against him, they had nonetheless amounted to a criminal conviction within the meaning of the Convention. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant had been able to address the domestic courts before the end of the hearings in his cases could not be equated with his right to be heard during trial. Indeed, the failure to hear the applicant in person was difficult to reconcile with the requirements of a fair trial in cases such as these where the courts had to carry out an assessment of the subjective element of the alleged offence, that is, the applicant’s intent to denigrate. The Court therefore concluded that by quashing the first-instance judgments and re-examining the merits of the accusations against the applicant without hearing evidence from him and without allowing him to present his defence, the Romanian courts had failed to comply with the requirements of a fair trial. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases.   Article 10   It was not in dispute between the parties that the decisions had constituted an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. That interference had been “prescribed by law” (Article 206 of the Criminal Code and Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code) and had served a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and reputations of others.   Firstly, the Court found that the articles in question, concerning two public figures, had dealt with issues – indecent behaviour towards an intern and rumours of collaboration with the communist political police – which merited legitimate public concern. Given the context and seriousness of the allegations, the articles had therefore contributed to a debate of public interest.   Furthermore, there had been facts to support the applicant’s statements: the intern had told the courts that she had made accusations about Doctor P.; and, two witnesses had admitted in court that they had provided information to the applicant about the Mayor’s collaboration with the Securitate .   Moreover, aside from the fact that the Court attached no importance to the Government’s argument that the applicant had acted in bad faith when writing both articles – as the criminal proceedings had lacked the requirements of a fair trial – there was nothing in the case files to indicate that the applicant had tried intentionally to denigrate Doctor P. or the Mayor of Buziaş.   In conclusion, although the fines and damages imposed on the applicant had been moderate, the Court found that the Romanian authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons in either of the cases to justify the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. The interference had not therefore been “necessary in a democratic society” and the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court awarded the applicant a total in both cases of EUR 6,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,200 for costs and expenses.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.