Published on 21 February 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 2151/21
Ciprian-Alexandru GHIȚĂ
against Romania
lodged on 16 December 2020
communicated on 4 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the protection of the applicant’s reputation from alleged defamatory statements – about his private life and his professional conduct (the applicant being a judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal) – made by a private person (E.G.) in public and in petitions lodged before the applicant’s professional superiors. The general tort law proceedings brought by the applicant against E.G. have been rejected with final effect by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in a judgment of 25 June 2020. The High Court notably considered that E.G. had made normal use of her right of petition and that the applicant could not prove that E.G. had made public the alleged defamatory statements through any mass communication tool (such as mass‑media or internet).
Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that by dismissing the proceedings he brought against E.G., the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake and to adequately protect his right to private life, reputation and fair trial, hence failing to protect him from the damage caused to his career, reputation and social and professional relationships.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the content of the public statements and petitions about him made by E.G. (see, mutatis mutandis, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 128-131, ECHR 2015)?
2. If so, was that interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic judicial authorities adequately put in balance, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case‑law, the applicant’s right for respect for his private life and E.G.’s right to freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis, Matalas v. Greece, no. 1864/18, § 42, 25 March 2021)?