CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sADDDE81A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } Communicated on 8 July 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 79039/16 A.M.P. against Romania lodged on 9 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns mainly the dismissal by a final judgment of 9   June 2016, delivered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, of a general tort law action brought by the applicant against several private individuals and the Democratic Trade Union seeking non-pecuniary damages for an alleged defamatory petition and defamatory statements concerning her which were disseminated in public, in the press and/or on the internet site of the trade union between September and December 2009. Relying expressly on Article   10 and in substance on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant, who was the first violinist of the “George Enescu” Philharmonic in Bucharest, complained about a breach of her right to honour and reputation because she was unable to obtain compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by her. 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 statements and petition disseminated in public, in the press and/or on the internet site of the Democratic Trade Union between September and December 2009 (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)?   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 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)?