CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 2018

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33794/14 Daniela PANIOGLU against Romania lodged on 28 April 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the sentence imposed on the applicant, who was a judge, by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 1 November 2013 for a press article wrote by her and published in a national newspaper and on an internet site about the President of the aforementioned court. In particular, the applicant argued that the sentence imposed on her and the lack of foreseeability of the Judges’ Deontology Code, in so far as it failed to define the concept of an opinion expressed on the moral and professional integrity of a colleague, amounted to a breach of her freedom of expression. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis , Kudeshkina v. Russia , no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009)?