| Applicant name | DANEŞ AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 3 |
| Country | Romania |
| Application no. | 32368/19 32369/19 32370/19 |
| Date | 06/02/2024 |
| Judges | aris Vehabović, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Anne Louise Bormann |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Reputation |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns the alleged failure by the domestic courts to protect the applicants’ reputation from attacks in the online media. The applicants are the heads of the College of Veterinary Medicine of Romania (CVM). The online publication Cotidianul.ro published an article by G.M. entitled “Danger to the Lives of Romanians: How the CVM’s Actions May Compromise Public Health.” The author of the article argued that the applicants’ actions seemingly prioritised the interests of pharmaceutical companies over public health imperatives and raised concerns that overturning the directive could result in the unregulated circulation of antibiotics and antiparasitic agents, a scenario at odds with prevailing European standards. Additionally, the author ventured into potential corrupt practices, questioning whether the applicants had been motivated by pecuniary incentives. The Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. It placed significant weight on the fact that the applicants were public figures and the impugned article pertained to their professional activities. Additionally, the court noted that the subject matter of the article was a matter of public interest which had sparked a public debate. Moreover, the defendants were deemed to have acted in good faith as the evidence did not indicate any ulterior motives beyond the intention of contributing to a public debate. Finally, the court concluded that the publication in question did not result in any detriment to the plaintiffs, as it did not impinge upon their honour, dignity, or professional standing. |
| Analysis | The ECtHR finds that the language employed by the journalist, albeit occasionally harsh, did not transgress the boundaries of acceptable journalistic exaggeration and provocation. In addition, the approach adopted by him in articulating suspicions concerning potential corrupt activities is such that it cannot be construed as a categorical accusation against the two applicants. The author merely expressed a viewpoint that their actions might reasonably prompt inquiries into the possibility of corruption being a factor. There is consequently no violation of Article 8 ECHR on this point. However, the Court also notes that the journalist articulated an explicit accusation of corrupt activities specifically targeting one of the applicants. Special grounds are required before the media can be dispensed from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals. As the regional court did not adequately assess the veracity of the statements and whether the journalist had respected its duties, it finds a violation on this point. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay the first applicant, within three months, EUR 7,500 (seven 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 |