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 Application no. 51107/16 Ioan ȚIRIAC against Romania lodged on 24 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns mainly the dismissal by a final judgment of 16   October 2015 (available to the parties on 16 April 2016), delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice with a majority, of a general tort law action brought by the applicant against a journalist and the company owning a national newspaper ( Financiarul ) for publishing on 14 July 2010 under the title “ 15 multimillionaires and their debts of a quarter billion lei towards the State – The recipe of business success is guaranteed when the businesses are funded with public funds or the obligations toward the State budget are not paid.” an allegedly defamatory article concerning the applicant. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained about a breach of his right to honour and reputation because the domestic courts failed to protect his aforementioned rights, assessed the circumstances of the case wrongly, and he was unable to obtain compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s 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 Pfeifer v. Austria , no. 12556/03, § 35, 15   November 2007; Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §   83, 7   February 2012; and Petrie v. Italy , no. 25322/12, §   39, 18   May 2017)?   2.     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 applicant’s right for respect for private life and the defendants’ right to freedom of expression (see Von Hannover v.   Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.   40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-13, ECHR 2012; Axel Springer AG , cited above, §§   89-95; and Petrie, cited above, § 40)?