|
|
|
|
Centre
|
|
|
Human Rights in the World
|
|
|
|
|
Dumitru v. Romania (application no. 4710/04)
03.06.2010
|
| |
|
|
Principal facts
The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Ioan Dumitru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Pâncota, Arad (Romania).
In late October 2002 the Observator local newspaper in Arad published two successive articles accusing a police superintendent, B.T., of unlawfully appropriating ownership of real property. The second article, under the headline “superintendent B.T. accused of interference with possessions and misappropriation”, reproduced the content of a criminal complaint lodged by Mr Dumitru against the police officer, accusing him of having wrongfully used a lake that belonged to Mr Dumitru for fish farming. According to the article, when asked how the police officer had managed to lay his hands on such a large lake, Mr Dumitru replied that he had “produced some extremely rough and ready forgeries” and, “in true mafia style”, presented the forged documents to the municipal authorities in order to gain possession of the whole lake. In December 2002 the superintendent brought criminal proceedings against Mr Dumitru, claiming damages.
On 17 December 2003 the Arad Court of First Instance acquitted the defendant, noting that he had produced various documents in support of his allegations (title deed, entry in the land register, civil court decisions, etc.), which he had shown to the journalist in good faith. On appeal, on 29 May 2003 the County Court came to a different conclusion and sentenced Mr Dumitru to a fine of six million Romanian lei – convertible into days of detention under the law in force at the time – and to pay the police superintendent fifty million lei in damages. Reviewing the facts presented before the first-instance court, it considered that in communicating the information to the journalist Mr Dumitru had seriously damaged the police officer’s dignity and reputation, especially as his accusations had not stood up in court.
Meanwhile, by a final decision dated 20 September 2001 the Ineu Court of First Instance had ordered the State Land Agency (SLA) to transfer ownership of the lake to the local commission for the application of Law No. 18/1991 on landed property, with instructions to transfer it, in its turn, to Mr Dumitru, restoring his right of ownership over the original site.
Decision of the Court
Reasoning behind the decision to convict Mr Dumitru of defamation (Article 6 § 1)
The Court reiterated that the Convention did indeed impose a duty on courts to give reasons for their decisions, but did not require them to give a detailed reply to every argument raised before them.
However, there was no denying that in the present case the County Court had failed to state any concrete grounds for the conviction for defamation. Nor had it examined the material and intentional aspects of the offence of defamation, or singled out any material facts that could have justified its conclusion. Mr Dumitru was therefore right to argue that the Arad County Court had not given sufficient reasons for its judgment of 29 May 2003 and that he had not been given a fair hearing. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Freedom of expression (Article 10)
Interference with freedom of expression was acceptable only if it was provided for by law and served a legitimate purpose. Neither party disputed that that was the case here. However, the impugned measure also had to be “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve the legitimate aim pursued. The Court’s examination focused mainly on this last consideration.
The Court observed, first of all, that Mr Dumitru’s claims, based on documentary proof, were sufficiently well grounded in fact. That showed his good faith, as did the moderation in his words, and the fact that he had expressed himself in the context of an on-going debate on a matter of general interest (a previous article having already been published on the subject). The Court also pointed out that unfair proceedings for defamation (as in this case) could in principle give rise to a violation of freedom of expression only. Lastly, the Court referred to the severity of the sentence pronounced against Mr Dumitru (a fine convertible into days of detention, plus damages, the whole adding up to a sizeable sum). There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.
Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
The Court observed that in spite of a final decision in 2001 ordering the local commission to transfer ownership of the lake to Mr Dumitru, and his subsequent efforts to secure its enforcement, the decision had never been fully enforced, or set aside or amended through any legal process of appeal. Mr Dumitru had not recovered his ownership rights. The Court accordingly considered that the State had not taken all the necessary steps to have the final judicial decision in his favour enforced. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The full press release is available here.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| « back |
|
|
|
