THIRD SECTION
Application no. 43912/10
Laurentiu Emilian JALBĂ
against Romania
lodged on 20 July 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Laurenţiu Emilian Jalbă, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Galaţi. He is represented before the Court by Ms Rodica Magdalena Jalbă, a lawyer practising in Galaţi.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a civil servant and works for the Galaţi Mayor’s Office. On 11 April 2008 an article was published in the local newspaper Antidotul by the journalist I.G. The title of the article written in bold letters was “Two Slyboots From The Mayor’s Office Protect The Maxitaxi Mafia In Galaţi”(“Doi şmecheri din primărie protejează mafia maxi-taxi din Galaţi”). A photograph of the applicant was shown under the title of the article with the explanation written in bold letters “To Jalbă, the suckers lodge repeated complaints without any results” (“La Jalbă, fraierii vin degeaba cu jalba-n proţap”).
The article started by describing the applicant as the former head of the Galaţi Mayor’s Office Transport Service and then it continued to present as established facts the applicant’s and his successor’s, in the post of head of the Galaţi Mayor’s Office Transport Service, interference with the modernization of the local public transport service on account of their private business interests. It stated that “the young Laurenţiu Jalbă can prove anytime that he is an old fox in cheating. He owns cars that run on the maxi-taxi routes and that bring in large sums of money”. After it compared the applicant’s actions with those of actors playing roles of members of organised crime, it stated that the local public transport service attached to the local Town Council had made several attempts to improve the public transport in the city but that its requests for transport licences, including transport licences for the routes covered by the maxi-taxies, had been rejected by the applicant in spite of the scandal that ensued “because this fellow, owner of a maxi-taxi business, is not interested for the local public transport service to be effective, but is interested in him filling up his bank accounts, without anyone holding him accountable”.
Considering that the impugned article had been defamatory and had subjected him to public contempt, thereby destroying his honour, dignity, professional reputation and interfering with his right to private life, the applicant lodged a general tort law action against the journalist I.G. and asked for 10,000 lei (RON) (approximately 2,800 euros (EUR)) in non‑pecuniary damage. He argued that the journalist had published an insulting and slandering article against him accusing him without any proof and without properly examining the transport legislation in force at the time of abuse of power. He submitted evidence that neither him nor his family members owned any maxi-taxi businesses or were associates of one, that no disciplinary or criminal action had been opened against him for alleged acts of corruption, that the local transport agency he was managing had not suffered any prejudice as a result of his actions and that no third parties lodged complaints in respect of his actions. In addition, he submitted that the contract for transport licences awarded to the local transport agency that was signed in 2005 could be amended according to the transport legislation in force at the time only after five years and therefore no other licences could have been awarded prior to that date. Consequently, he concluded that none of the journalist’s statements were true.
By a judgment of 18 February 2009 the Galaţi District Court allowed the applicant’s general tort law action and ordered the journalist to pay the applicant the non-pecuniary damage he had requested. It held that the journalist, acting negligently, had made slanderous statements against the applicant without any proof, accusing him of actions incompatible with his status as a civil servant and which, if proven to be true, would have subjected him to very serious personal and professional consequences. The journalistic freedom of expression was not absolute and was limited by the applicant’s right to dignity, personal image and private life. The journalist failed to carry out a preliminary investigation of the information used in his article and failed to support any of his statements by relevant evidence. The journalist appealed against the judgment.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought criminal proceedings with civil claims against the journalist for slander.
By a final order of 25 March 2009 the Galaţi Prosecutor Office dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint against the journalist on the ground that the Romanian Criminal Code provisions concerning slender had been repealed by Law no. 278/2006. The applicant did not appeal the order before domestic courts.
By a final judgment of 21 January 2010 the Galaţi County Court allowed the journalist’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 18 February 2009 and dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the article concerned an issue of public interest, in particular the management of public funds in respect of transport licences that justified the article being published. Given the nature of the subject discussed by the article the level of exaggeration was tolerable and the journalist’s statements were value judgments that did not need to be proved.
B. Relevant domestic law
Articles 998 and 999 of the Civil Code provide that any person who has suffered damage can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who has intentionally or negligently caused it.
COMPLAINT
Relying expressly on Article 10 and in substance on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to respect for his reputation and dignity, including his right to respect for private life, has been breached by the publication of the article of 11 April 2008, and because the domestic courts dismissed his complaint in this regard, in particular his general tort law action, without striking a proper balance between the opposing interests at stake.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and, more specifically, with his right to a good reputation, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the publishing of the article of 11 April 2008 and the rejection of his general tort law action in this respect?
2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy