CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     Communicated on 16 September 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49379/13 Ștefan CIORHAN against Romania lodged on 25 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ştefan Ciorhan, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Carei. He is represented before the Court by Ms   S.   A.   Borza, a lawyer practising in Oradea. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a former member of the Carei branch of the Association for Sportsmen Fishermen and Hunters ( Asociația Vânătorilor şi Pescarilor Sportivi ) (AVPS). The AVPS, among other things, represented the interest of all the Romanian hunters and fishermen on a national and international level, managed the national hunting and fishing grounds and issued hunting and fishing licenses. In 2011 the applicant and fifty-three other members of the Carei branch of the AVPS signed a petition notifying the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture about the unlawful acts committed by the president and the members of the Carei branch of the AVPS, in particular the poor management of the fishing and hunting grounds and the unlawful fees claimed from the members of the association. The investigation report produced on 7 October 2011 by the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture noted several breaches of the domestic legislation in respect of the activity of the Carei branch of the AVPS concerning the fees claimed and the management of the fishing and hunting grounds and suspended its activity for three months. On 28 March 2012 the applicant went to the Carei branch of the AVPS to pay the fee for his fishing license. Because he disagreed with the amount he had been asked to pay, he was verbally and physically abused by the accountant of the organisation. On the same date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint before the Carei Police Department against the accountant of the Carei branch of the AVPS and informed the local newspaper Informația Zilei about the incident. On 29 March 2012 the aforementioned local newspaper wrote an article under the heading “The fishermen’s stream of complaints against the leadership of the Carei branch of the AVPS continues”. The article started by informing the readers that several complaints had been lodged over the past year against the Carei branch of the AVPS on account among other things of the fees charged from its members. Afterwards it quoted the applicant’s statement which described the incident of 28 March 2012, it informed the readers about the petition he and the other members of the organisation had signed against the leadership of the Carei branch of the AVPS in 2011 and it concluded that “as a result of his accounts and the numerous fishermen’s petitions, the initiation of an investigation into the activity of the association would be desirable. The police too would certainly have something to investigate”. The article also included a rebuttal of the president of the Carei branch of the AVPS concerning the applicant’s statement. On 5 April 2012 the Carei Police Department fined the accountant of the Carei branch of the AVPS for her behaviour during the incident of 28   March 2012. On 20 April 2012 the Carei brach of the AVPS brought civil proceedings against the applicant seeking non-pecuniary damage as a result of the article and the tarnishing of its public image. In addition, it also claimed costs and expenses. By a judgment of 14 December 2012 the Carei District Court allowed the the Carei brach of the AVPS’s action and ordered the applicant to pay the organization 5,000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 1,300 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and RON 611 (approximately EUR 140) for costs and expenses. It held that although the applicant had stated in the press article that there had been numerous fishermen petitions concerning the association, the available evidence showed that there had been only one more press article published by another former member of the organization. In addition, the applicant’s statement that the police would certainly have something to investigate had aimed to suggest that the leadership of the Carei branch of AVPS had committed criminal offences and was therefore subjective. The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. He argued among other things that the first-instance court neglected the available evidence, misinterpreted his statements and took them out of context as they concerned events he had been personally confronted with and confirmed by the investigating authorities. In addition, the Carei branch of AVPS had increased its number of members from 2011 to 2012 and therefore could not claim that its public image had been tarnished by the applicant’s actions. By a final judgment of 16 April 2013 the Satu-Mare County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held that the press article was aimed at raising questions in respect of the lawfulness of the organisation’s actions and to generate mistrust and the desire to leave the organisation among its members. The applicant made the defamatory statements in question in the press conscientiously and without holding precise data in respect of the irregularities or the offences committed by the organization. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant provisions of the Romanian Civil Code concerning liability for paying damages, in force at the material time, are described in Timciuc v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28999/03, 12 October 2010). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the civil sentence imposed on him and the absence of sufficient reasons provided by the domestic courts amounted to a breach of his freedom of expression.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?