BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 32104/06
Catalin Petrica COJOCARU
against Romania
lodged on 16 June 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Catalin Petrica Cojocaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Pascani. He was represented before the Court by Ms Nicoleta Afloroaei, a lawyer practising in Iasi.

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 journalist and chief editor of the local weekly magazine, which is named Orizontul”.

In the 15–21 February 2005 edition of that magazine, the applicant wrote an article about R.N., the mayor of Pascani, under the headline: “Resignation of honour”, listing ten points advocating the mayor’s resignation. The article contained references to the mayor’s activity, in wording such as: “Twenty years of local dictatorship”; “[R.N.] at in the peak of the pyramid of evil”; “in Pascani, only those who subscribe to [R.N.]’s mafia-like system can still do business”; “we have been ruled for over twenty years by a former communist who still has the reflexes of a county chief secretary”; “[R.N.] does not represent the interests of the [local community]”.

On the same page, the applicant wrote a news piece about the investigation into the mayor’s activity. He quoted there a statement by a politician about an ongoing investigation into some of the mayor’s activities by the prefectural standards board. Another statement by a politician, and the mayor’s point of view on the investigation, were presented in the article.

On 14 March 2005 R.N. lodged a criminal complaint with Pascani District Court, accusing the applicant of insult and defamation. He also sought civil damages.

On 19 December 2005 the court convicted the applicant of defamation and sentenced him to pay a criminal fine of 10,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) and to pay to R.N. ROL 30,000,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It acquitted him of the accusations of insult.

The court considered that the applicant offended the mayor when alleging that the local businessmen had to “subscribe to ... a mafia-like system”. It noted that the applicant had proved with official documents that there had been irregularities in the activities of the public administration, but considered that that proof alone was not sufficient to justify those statements made as fact by the applicant. The court reiterated that a journalist had a general obligation to act in good faith.

In establishing the sentence, the court took into account the applicant’s criminal record, as he had previously been convicted of insult and defamation.

The applicant appealed on points of law, but in a final decision of 27 April 2006 the Iasi County Court upheld the previous decision.

The court of appeal reiterated the journalist’s obligation to act in good faith, and took the view that in not limiting his assertions to what was necessary to inform the public the applicant had made value judgments intended to defame the mayor. It also noted that the applicant had failed to abide by the warnings given to him by previous convictions and had persisted in his criminal behaviour.

B.  Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Civil and Criminal Codes concerning insult and defamation and liability for paying damages, in force at the material time, as well as their subsequent amendments are described in Timciuc v. Romania ((dec.), no. 28999/03, 12 October 2010).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal sentence imposed on him amounted to a breach of his freedom of expression.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?