| Applicant name | UNGUR |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Romania |
| Application no. | 2156/16 |
| Date | 12/03/2024 |
| Judges | Tim Eicke, President, Branko Lubarda, Ana Maria Guerra Martins |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Procedural requirements |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; private life |
| Keywords | Press; reputational harm |
| Facts of the case | The applicant, who was a well-known businessman and philanthropist in his town, filed a criminal complaint against C.A., the manager of the Bistrițeanul.ro online publication, in which he accused her of blackmail. He alleged that a foundation led by him had been procuring advertising space from C.A.’s publication in the past. Following the cessation of such purchase, C.A. had allegedly resorted to blackmail to coerce him to continue purchasing advertising or face the prospect of unfavourable articles being published in the publication. According to the applicant, the prosecuting authority supervising the investigation informed him that the evidence in favour of the allegation was insufficient. Therefore, he decided to meet with C.A. and make an audio recording of their exchange to assemble evidence in support of his criminal complaint. Nonetheless, according to the applicant, C.A. purportedly perceived his proposal as a ruse and sent a journalist to the meeting who recorded the exchange with him. Bistrițeanul.ro published an editorial by C.A., under the headline “The Hungarian Bulan [An equivocal reference to the applicant’s surname] wants to buy our silence”. The editorial expounded on the fact that the applicant, who aspired to run for the post of Mayor of Bistrița, was disseminating rumours that Bistrițeanul.ro was the only publication that was giving him negative press coverage since he had not procured any advertising space from it. The applicant had decided to resolve this issue by approaching a journalist from the publication and proposing money for silence. Little did he know that the conversation was being recorded by the journalist. The editorial went on to imply that the applicant was a morally bereft person implicated in reproachable conduct who thought that everything and everyone was for sale. |
| Analysis | A careful distinction is to be made between factual statements on the one hand, and value judgments on the other. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. Whilst recognising the discretion enjoyed by the press in its choice of methods of journalistic reporting, in assessing the proportionality of an interference the Court has had regard to whether the news reporting in question was objective and balanced, including whether the target of the criticism was given an opportunity to comment or afforded a right to reply. The Court agrees with the domestic courts’ assessment that the impugned editorial addressed a matter of public interest, particularly considering the applicant’s declared candidacy in the imminent local elections. It also agrees with the domestic courts concerning the special protection enjoyed by the defendants who represented the media. Nonetheless, freedom of expression carries with it “duties and responsibilities” that also apply to the media, even with respect to matters of serious public interest. The domestic courts classified the impugned statements as statements of fact and found that they were grounded on true facts. Where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts. The Court cannot but observe that none of the arguments and speculations prove in any meaningful manner the allegation that the applicant attempted to bribe the authorities. Moreover, the Court finds unconvincing the Regional Court’s reasoning that the term “bribes” used in the impugned statement was nothing more than an acceptable artistic exaggeration. It notes that no criminal conviction or even criminal accusation came to corroborate the defendants’ allegations and, in the absence of any relevant evidence, concludes that the defendants failed to substantiate the truth of their allegations that the applicant had attempted to bribe the authorities in order to secure building permits. With respect to the accusation that the applicant unlawfully took possession of goods intended for flood victims, the domestic court found that the defendants’ proof was founded on a witness statement recounting rumours that not all the goods collected for the flood victims and stored in an apartment belonging to the applicant had reached the intended recipients. The Court observes firstly that the witness in question was employed by the defendants. Moreover, she merely referred to rumours which the domestic courts failed to verify, and no other evidence which could corroborate such rumours were presented. The journalist thus reproduced the contents of an unverified rumour and presented them as the objective truth. Consequently, the Court finds itself unconvinced that the defendants established the truth of this allegation either. The Court finally notes that the defendants did neither grant the applicant the opportunity to comment nor afforded him a right to reply. Th |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; |
| Documents | Judgment |