Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)209[1]
Petrina against Romania
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 78060/01, judgment of 14 October 2008, final on 6 April 2009)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the failure of the domestic courts to adequately protect the applicant’s reputation and strike a fair balance between the interests at stake following reports in the media that the applicant, a politician, had been an officer in the Communist secret services (violation of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix);
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent State (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)209
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Petrina against Romania
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the lack of adequate protection of the applicant’s reputation by the Romanian courts in criminal proceedings brought by the applicant, a politician, against two journalists following their media coverage of the applicant being a former officer in the Communist secret services (violation of Article 8).
By two decisions of July 2000 given in last instance, the Bucharest County Court acquitted the journalists on the charges of insult and defamation and rejected the applicant’s civil claims. The County Court found that the journalists’ remarks on TV and in the written media did not refer to specific facts and therefore represented value-judgments which came within the scope of the freedom of opinion and the right to communicate ideas. The County Court equally took into account the satirical style of the disputed articles.
Contrary to the domestic courts, the European Court found that the disputed remarks were offensive to the applicant and that their message was clear and straightforward, devoid of any ironical or humoristic element. Even assuming that they could be construed as value-judgments, the European Court noted that they lacked any factual basis. In these circumstances, despite the undisputed public interest of the debate which these remarks had been a part of, the journalists had crossed the acceptable line. In consequence, the domestic courts did not put forward convincing reasons for giving precedence to the journalists’ right to freedom of expression over the applicant’s right to the protection of his reputation, thereby breaking the reasonable relationship of proportionality between the competing interests at stake.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a)Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
5 000 EUR
-
5 000 EUR
Paid on 09/07/2009 (the applicant waived interests in view of small amount)
b)Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In the circumstances of the present case, the publication and the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment (see below) are also relevant as measures that allow erasing the consequences of the violation. In these circumstances, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
For the Government, the violation found by the European Court in the instant case is of an isolated nature, as it stems from an error of the domestic courts in assessing the actual circumstances of the case. Therefore, the publication and the dissemination of the judgment seem to be appropriate measures to prevent similar violations.
To this end, the Romanian translation of the European Court’s judgment was published on the website of the Superior Council of Magistracy (), and is therefore available to the public and the magistrates. Also, the judgment was disseminated to the domestic courts. Lastly, the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates organised by the National Institute of Magistracy.
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that no further individual measure is requested in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction. It equally considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy