CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 mars 2010

.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 } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   211 16.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Papaianopol v. Romania (application no. 17590/02)     BREACH OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF A JOURNALIST AND TRADE-UNION LEADER ORDERED TO PAY DAMAGES FOR ARTICLE ABOUT HEADMASTER   Unanimously   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Dan Florin Papaianopol, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Câmpulung Muscel (Romania). In addition to being the leader of a teachers’ union he worked as a journalist for Şcoala românească , a national publication specialising in the teaching profession. In March 1999 he published an article entitled “Terror at D. High School in Câmpulung Muscel” about the school’s headmaster. Based mainly on complaints by teachers, it portrayed the headmaster as using dictatorial methods in his school, taking measures in his own interest, obstructing reforms, using threats and physical violence, etc. It explained that he had been assigned to the school as a teacher by the communist regime before 1989 and that he had been promoted to headmaster in 1989 after joining the majority political party (the “PDSR”). The article also criticised the Schools Inspectorate for not taking firm action against him.   Following that article, in May 1999 the headmaster filed a criminal complaint for defamation against Mr Papaianopol. He also joined the proceedings as a civil party and claimed 50,000,000 old Romanian lei (ROL) for the non-pecuniary damage caused to his reputation. In his defence Mr Papaianopol pointed out that the article’s content was based on numerous statements and letters from teachers (some of whom were called as witnesses at the trial) that he had checked and was willing to produce in the proceedings. On 2 March 2000 the Câmpulung District Court acquitted the applicant of criminal libel and dismissed the compensation claim. The court had particular regard to the fact that the limits of acceptable criticism were broader as regards a person holding a public office and that Mr Papaianopol had simply reported complaints by teachers, duly indicating his source. On appeal, in a final judgment of 25 September 2000, the Argeş County Court, accepting that the applicant had reproduced information from the teachers’ statements, upheld his acquittal of the libel charge. Finding, however, that the article had nevertheless caused non-pecuniary damage to the headmaster, the court awarded him ROL 15,000,000 in damages. The payment order was enforced against Mr Papaianopol in 2001.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying mainly on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Papaianopol alleged that the award of damages against him had breached his freedom of expression as journalist and trade-union leader.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), judges ,   and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   For a restriction of freedom of expression to comply with the Convention it had to be prescribed by law and to pursue a legitimate aim such as the protection of the reputation or rights of others. It was not in dispute between the parties that those two conditions had been fulfilled in the present case. Such restriction also had to be based on relevant and sufficient reasons and to be proportionate to the aim pursued. The Court had to ascertain whether this requirement was met by the penalty imposed on Mr Papaianopol.   The Court first observed that the necessity of the restriction on the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been established convincingly. In particular, the appellate court had only justified its finding against him by the non-pecuniary damage that the headmaster claimed to have sustained on account of the publication at issue (without indicating how Mr Papaianopol had actually committed a breach of duty as a journalist). Such reasoning would be tantamount to saying that the courts could find against any article capable of triggering the slightest concern and that would be contrary to the role of the press in a democratic society to alert public opinion when alleged shortcomings in public institutions came to its attention.   The Court then reiterated that freedom of expression entailed duties and responsibilities and observed that in the present case Mr Papaianopol, whose article had directly impugned an individual giving his name and position, had a duty to ensure that his article had a sufficient factual basis. This requirement had clearly been met. His article, which concerned the conduct of the headmaster of a high school in his professional capacity (not in his private life), reported facts that had been written by teachers at the school and reiterated by them before the Romanian courts. The Court further noted that the applicant had participated actively in his trial and had constantly offered to prove the veracity of his comments. His conduct, as a whole, showed that he had acted in good faith, being convinced that he was informing the public about a debate of general interest.   Lastly, the Court found that the amount of the award against Mr Papaianopol had been relatively high. To impose such penalties on investigative journalists without showing that they had breached their duties or responsibilities was likely to dissuade them from expressing themselves on matters of public interest such as alleged malpractice in the running of public institutions.   The Court thus found that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant, in respect of pecuniary damage, a sum corresponding to the amount that he had been ordered to pay the headmaster, 713 euros (EUR). The Court also held that Romania was to pay EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. 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 Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 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.