CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 janvier 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     27   19.1.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF ROTARU v. ROMANIA   Wednesday, 19 January 2000 at 9 a.m.     The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a Romanian national, Aurel Rotaru, who was born in 1921 and lives in Bârlad (Romania). He is retired.   Summary of the facts   In 1992 the applicant, who in 1948 had been sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for having expressed criticism of the communist regime established in 1946, brought an action in which he sought to be granted rights that Decree no. 118 of 1990 afforded persons who had been persecuted by the communist regime. In the proceedings which followed in the Bârlad Court of First Instance, one of the defendants, the Ministry of the Interior, submitted to the court a letter sent to it on 19 December 1990 by the Romanian Intelligence Service, which contained, among other things, information about the applicant’s political activities between 1946 and 1948.   According to the same letter, Mr Rotaru had been a member of the Christian Students’ Association, an extreme right-wing “legionnaire” movement, in 1937.   The applicant considered that some of the information in question was false and defamatory – in particular, the allegation that he had been a member of the legionnaire movement – and brought proceedings against the Romanian Intelligence Service, claiming damages for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained and amendment or destruction of the file containing the untrue information. The claim was dismissed by the Bârlad Court of First Instance in a judgment that was upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 15 December 1994. Both courts held that they had no power to order amendment or destruction of the information in the letter of 19 December 1990 as it had been gathered by the State’s former security services, and the Romanian Intelligence Service had only been a depositary.   In a letter of 6 July 1997 the Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service informed the Ministry of Justice that after further checks in their registers it appeared that the information about being a member of the “legionnaire” movement referred not to the applicant but to another person of the same name.   In the light of that letter the applicant sought a review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 15 December 1994 and claimed damages. In a decision of 25 November 1997 the Bucharest Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 15 December 1994 and declared the information about the applicant’s past membership of the “legionnaire” movement null and void. It did not rule on the claim for damages. Complaints   The applicant complains of an infringement of his right to private life in that the Romanian Intelligence Service holds a file containing information on his private life and that it is impossible to refute the untrue information. He relies on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also complains of the lack of an effective remedy before a national authority which could rule on his application for amendment or destruction of the file containing untrue information. He relies on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 February 1995. Having declared the application admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 1   March 1999 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. It referred the case to the Court on 3 June 1999. The   applicant also brought the case before the Court, on 20 June 1999.   Composition of the Court   On 7 July 1999 a panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided, pursuant to Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, taken together with Rules 100 § 1 and 24 § 6 of the Rules of Court, that the case would be heard by the Grand Chamber, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Judges , Renate Weber (Romanian), ad hoc Judge , Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Substitute Judges , and also Michele de Salvia , Registrar , and Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar . Representatives of the parties   Government:   Roxana Riziou , Agent , and Mihai Selegean and Titus Corlăţean , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Ionel Olteanu , Counsel .   Florin Rotaru , the applicant’s son, will also attend the hearing.   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.