CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 février 2024

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary June 2024 Danileţ v. Romania (referral) - 16915/21 Judgment 20.2.2024 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Disciplinary sanction imposed by National Judicial and Legal Service Commission on judge for posting two messages on his Facebook page: case referred to the Grand Chamber At the relevant time the applicant was a judge at a County Court. He was well known for actively taking part in debates on democracy, the rule of law and the judiciary and enjoyed significant nationwide renown particularly on account of his various former positions. In January 2019 he posted two messages on his publicly accessible Facebook account, for which in May of that same year he received a disciplinary sanction – a two-month, 5% pay cut – from the disciplinary board of the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission ( Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii ). The board found that, by posting the first message, the applicant had – unequivocally and with several thousand readers – cast doubt on the credibility of public institutions, insinuating that they were controlled by the political class and proposing as a solution that the army intervene to ensure constitutional democracy. With regard to the second message, which contained a hyperlink to an interview with a prosecutor along with a comment by the applicant, the board found that the language used by the applicant had overstepped the limits of decency and had been unworthy of a judge. The High Court upheld those findings following an appeal by the applicant. In a judgment delivered on 20   February 2024 a Chamber of the Court held, by four   votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article   10 of the Convention, because the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The Court also decided to reject the applicant’s complaint under Article   8 of the Convention as being incompatible ratione materiae , finding that the grounds for the sanction were unrelated to the applicant’s “private life” and that it had not had severe negative consequences for his “inner circle”, for his ability to form and develop relationships with others or for his reputation. This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 24   June 2024 at the Government’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .