| Applicant name | OLEG BALAN |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Moldova |
| Application no. | 25259/20 |
| Date | 14/05/2024 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, ad hoc judge, Pauliine Koskelo, Saadet Yüksel, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Frédéric Krenc, Davor Derenčinović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | no fair balance 8 and 10 echr |
| Type of privacy | Private life |
| Keywords | Reputation; indirect horizontal |
| Facts of the case | The applicant argued that his right to the protection of his honour, dignity and professional reputation, as protected by Article 8 of the Convention, had been breached. The Supreme Court of Justice had failed to properly balance the two competing rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Freedom of expression was not unlimited and the courts had failed to give sufficient consideration to the duties and responsibilities inherent in exercising it. Mr Usatîi had not acted in good faith in publishing the Note as he had failed to take any steps aimed at verifying its authenticity. |
| Analysis | The Court is mindful that the internet has become one of the principal means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom of expression. It provides essential tools for participation in activities and discussions concerning political issues and issues of general interest. However, the benefits of this information tool, an electronic network serving billions of users worldwide, are accompanied by a certain number of risks. Defamatory and other types of clearly unlawful speech, including hate speech and speech inciting violence, can be disseminated as never before, worldwide, in a matter of seconds, and sometimes remain available online for lengthy periods (concerning unlawful comments published on Facebook). In this regard, the Court notes that in the present case Mr Usatîi’s publication was immediately quoted by several mass media outlets. Moreover, it observes that Mr Usatîi did not simply publish the Note but captioned his Facebook post “Received an interesting document in the post. Again our Timofte knew everything and kept silent about it”. Therefore, instead of warning the readers of his Facebook page about the unknown source and the doubts concerning the authenticity of the document, he presented it as being indisputably genuine. In such circumstances, warning potential readers can help them to decide whether to trust information obtained from an anonymous source about a topic of public interest. Politicians using social media are not released from their “duties and responsibilities” under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. In that connection, the Court observes that a news portal had also received the same Note but, failing to establish its authenticity, had decided not to publish it. The Court also notes that Mr Usatîi did not warn the readers on his Facebook page or elsewhere about the possibility that the Note was fake even after both the SIS and the President’s office had denied its authenticity, or after he had been informed of those denials by the applicant. Lastly, as regards the consequences of the publication, the Government argued that the applicant had not suffered any consequences from the publication of the Note. It is difficult for the Court to determine whether the publication had an effect on his political career. However, the Court has no reason to doubt that allegations as serious as those published by Mr Usatîi did affect the applicant’s reputation. In this connection, the Court cannot but observe that the applicant was never charged with or convicted of any criminal offence. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; |
| Documents | Judgment |