Published on 7 November 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 47591/21 and 50506/21
Mihaela-Elena BELDIMAN against Romania
and Tiberiu-George BELDIMAN against Romania
lodged on 9 September 2021
communicated on 18 October 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are husband and wife. At the time of the impugned events Mrs Beldiman was a high-level public servant with the Suceava County Council and Mr Beldiman was a private employee and a former member of a political party and local councilor. The applications concern the dismissal by a final judgment of the Suceava Court of Appeal of 10 February 2021 (available to the applicants on 15 March 2021) of a tort law action brought by the applicants against a local blogger. The latter was an employee of the Suceava County Council and between 2013 and 2016, had written and posted online on his blog and/or on his Facebook account thirty-eight articles concerning the applicants. The articles in question had used alleged offensive expressions and had suggested or alleged, inter alia, that the applicants had committed numerous unlawful acts and had been members of the Mafia. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicants complained that the national courts had violated their right to a fair hearing because in dismissing their tort law action, the courts had omitted to examine some of the articles and above-mentioned statements contested by them and some of the arguments raised by them in support of their claim. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complained about a violation of their rights to honour, image and private life because the domestic courts had omitted to examine some of the articles and statements contested by the applicants and some of the arguments raised by them in support of their claim, had assessed the circumstances of the case wrongly and had failed to strike a proper balance between the opposing interests at stake. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention taken jointly with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that they had not been provided with an effective judicial remedy for their claim because of the manner described above in which the national courts had examined their case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts fail to conduct a proper examination of the submissions and arguments raised by the applicants in so far as the courts have allegedly omitted to examine some of the articles and statements contested by the applicants and some of the arguments raised by them in support of their claim?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the content of the articles in question?
If so, was that interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts adequately balance, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law, the applicants’ rights to respect for their private life, honour and image and the defendant’s right to freedom of expression having regard to the circumstances of the case and to all the articles and statements contested by the applicants and the arguments raised by them in support of their claim?
3. Did the tort law proceedings brought by the applicants against the blogger in question before the national courts provide them with an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for the alleged violations of their Convention rights?