CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 13 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45430/19 Zoltán-Ovidiu TOTH and Alin CRIȘAN against Romania lodged on 8 August 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal by a final judgment of 29   February 2019, delivered by the Oradea Court of Appeal, of the general tort law proceedings brought by the applicants, who are police officers, against a private party seeking non-pecuniary damages because - after they fined the private party for a minor infraction - the private party posted a photograph of them together with their full names and an allegedly defamatory comment on her grouped Facebook account which was viewed by numerous persons and generated defamatory comments concerning them and their professional conduct. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complained that by dismissing the proceedings they brought against the private party because of her post, its content and the public reaction it generated, the domestic courts allegedly failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake and to adequately protect their right to private life and reputation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is there a positive obligation for the authorities to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their privacy and good reputation as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the photograph, personal data and comment posted by the private party on her Facebook account, as well as the public views and reaction it had generated?   2.     If so, in what manner did the authorities comply with their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the applicants? In particular, in finding against the applicants in the general tort proceedings taken by them against the private party, have the domestic courts conducted a careful balancing exercise between the competing interests of the applicants and the private party?