CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 10 July 2019   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 13091/17 and 13277/17 Nechita-Adrian OROS against Romania and Ion-Alin BÎRŢOIU against Romania lodged on 9 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the dismissal by a final judgment of 10 May 2016 (notified to the applicants on 12 August 2016), delivered by the Bucharest County Court, of a general tort law action brought by the applicants against a journalist and the company owning the online page of a national newspaper ( www.Cotidianul.ro ) for publishing on 13 March 2013 under the title “ Danger for the life of Romanian – The managers of the Veterinary College of Physicians put at risk the health of the population. ” an allegedly defamatory article concerning the applicants. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicants, who are members of the managerial team of the Veterinary College of Physicians, complained that the proceeding before the final-instance court were unfair because the court failed to provide reasons for dismissing the arguments raised by them in support of their application. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complained about a breach of their right to honour and reputation because the final-instance failed to protect their aforementioned rights, dismissed their application without examining their arguments, and they were unable to obtain compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the examination of their cases? In particular, did the final-instance court provide reasons for dismissing the arguments raised by the applicants in support of their applications?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the content of the article in question (see Petrie c. Italy , no. 25322/12, §   39, 18   May 2017, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §   83, 7   February 2012, and Pfeifer c. Austria , no. 12556/03, § 35, 15   November 2007)?   3.     If so, was that interference justified under Article 8   §   2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic judicial authorities adequately put in balance, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law, the applicants’ right for respect for private life and the defendants’ right to freedom of expression (see Petrie, cited above, § 40, Von Hannover v.   Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.   40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-13, ECHR   2012, and Axel Springer AG , cited above, §§   89-95)?