CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 janvier 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 82 January 2006 Stângu and Scutelnicu v. Romania - 53899/00 Judgment 31.1.2006 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Journalists sentenced to pay damages and interests to a high-ranking police officer and a judge: no violation   Facts : The applicants, who are journalists, published an article in a local newspaper about the resignation of the head of the local police force and referring also to his wife, a judge. The couple brought proceedings for defamation against the journalists, who were convicted by the trial and appeal courts. The Supreme Court of Justice set aside the decisions and retried the case. It found that the applicants had merely informed the public about certain activities on the part of the former police officer and his wife, and stressed that imposing a criminal penalty on the journalists would amount to censorship and would discourage the press from criticising the professional activities of certain public figures in the future. The Supreme Court acquitted the journalists of defamation, but ordered them to pay compensation to the complainants for non‑pecuniary damage. Law : Article 10 – The interference, prescribed by law, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, in this instance the reputations of the complainants. As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court pointed out that the article as a whole had contained factual allegations and had sought to convey a fairly unambiguous message to the public, namely that the chief police officer had in all likelihood dealt with a large number of cases with the complicity of his wife, a judge, and that he planned to invest a substantial sum of money in the setting-up of a private bank. However, the applicants had failed throughout the proceedings in the domestic courts to produce any evidence to substantiate their statements and had also failed to attend the hearings. They had also published statements attributed to a third party, which the latter had vigorously denied before the court and which had not been corroborated by any other evidence. In short, in view of the fact that the journalists had acted in bad faith and had failed to substantiate their allegations, and despite the fact that the impugned article had been published in the context of a broader and highly topical debate within Romanian society on corruption in the civil service, the Court did not believe that the applicants’ assertions could be taken as an example of the “degree of exaggeration” or “provocation” which was permissible in the exercise of journalistic freedom. The applicants could not argue that the Supreme Court had given insufficient reasons for its finding that the complainants had sustained non‑pecuniary damage, since they themselves had omitted to substantiate their allegations before the courts, thus making it impossible for the domestic courts to assess in full knowledge of the facts whether or not they had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism. Finally, the amount of damages had been relatively low, equivalent to EUR 831 to each of the complainants, and the sums had, in any event, not been paid. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes