17/01/2021 ECHR

R: \ 1_Graphics & Web \

Court_Graphic_Charter \ 2013 \
ECHR_Stationery \ Documents_and_Letters \
Cover_Pages_And_Docs \ White_600_dpi \
ECHR_CoverpageCS61_ECHR_Coverpage_He

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF MARINA v. ROMANIA

/
( Application no.50469 14 )

STOP

Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Reputation • Reading during a satirical radio program, of a letter offending the
applicant, written by his sister, and revealing his family problems • No contribution to a debate of general interest •
Failure to sort out the information contained in the letter • Protagonists designated by name without their consent •
Reading of the qualifier offensive against the applicant • No prior verification of the information which turned out to be
false • Broadcast for three days by radio of a press release disallowance having rendered irrelevant the exercise by the
applicant of his right of reply • Lack of detailed reasons and balancing of the interests present by the national courts

STRASBOURG

May 26, 2020

FINAL

08/26/2020
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It can undergo retouching.
R: \
1_Graphics
& Web \
Court Graph
OFF MARINA c. ROMANIA
In the ' case Marina c. Romania ,
The European Court of Human Rights ' Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Chamber composed of :
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , President Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Branko Lubarda , Carlo Ranzoni, Stephanie
Mourou-Vikström , Jolien Schukking , Péter Paczolay , judges , and Andrea Tamietti , clerk of section e ,

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 1/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

Seen :
o
the above application (n 50469/14) against Romania by a national of that State, Mr Viorel Marina ( "
Applicant on ") before the Court under ' Article 34 of the Convention on rights ' rights and fundamental freedoms
( " the Convention ") on 24 October 2014
the decision to inform the Romanian Government ( " the Government ") the complaint under ' Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention on a alleged lack ' impartiality of the court and the complaint of ' Article 8 of the Convention ,
the parties' observations,
After deliberating in the council chamber on May 5, 2020 ,
Delivers the ' following judgment , which was adopted on that date :
INTRODUCTION
The application concerned, under the ' angle of ' Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, an alleged lack ' impartiality
of the court which tried the ' case of the applicant in the final. It also carries, under the ' angle of ' Article 8 of the
Convention, on the alleged failure of national authorities to ' obligation would be theirs to protect the right to the
applicant's reputation.
IN FACT
es
1 . The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Ploieşti. He was represented by M I.C. Iliescu and CC
Marina, lawyers in Prahova.
me
2 . The Government was represented by its agent, M C. Brumar , the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
I. THE GENESIS OF THE ' CASE

3 . At the ' material time, the applicant was commissioner in the county police Prahova and although legally
divorced CD, his ex-wife, he lived a couple with her and their two children.
4 . June 3, 2011, around 9 pm 45, the facilitators ' a morning radio show Prahova Radio station lurent live a
letter to the editor of the latter by AM, the sister of the applicant. This letter contained personal information
about the applicant and his ex - wife, CD
5 . The live reading of this letter was accompanied by comments from the two hosts, Bu. and Bl . These s '
expressed as follows :
" (...)
Drank. : It s ' acts of ' a folded A4 sheet properly.
Bl . : In which the title can be read ...
Drank. : For Radio Prahova !
Bl . : For Radio Prahova ... Ok ! I t ' to pray, read it there to solve this mystery. I mean ... you piqued our curiosity.
Drank. I do not think that ' we can solve this mystery.
Bl . : So c ' is a mystery without a solution ?
Drank. : Yes !
Bl . ... dude, c ' is a conspiracy !
Drank. But I'll read it because ' there is a clear radio station that takes its listeners, regardless s ' they s ' call A., regardless s '
they s ' call Marina, no matter how they s ' call ; what happens to the ' writing reads address since it can be read ! Language is ...
hmm semi-licentious ... the height c ' is that ' even though the letter addressed to us it n ' has nothing to do with us !
Bl . : With us ! Yes...
Drank. : hmm well, we can start, yes ? For Radio Prahova ! For CD ... lawyer in court !
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 2/15
17/01/2021 ECHR
Bl . : Aha !
Drank. You slept with all the men ...
Bl .- ( laughs )
Drank. : And now you want the dowry ( zestrea ) for the bastard. That c ' is the pre Mière dedication. C ' is how c ' is written !
Bl . : So what is the connection with Radio Prahova ?
Drank. : I don't know ... we will understand later.
Bl . : D ' agreement !
Drank. : For ... hmm Mr. Marina Viorel ...
Bl . : How ? For Mr. Marina Viorel ?
Drank. : Yes !
Bl . : D ' agreement !
Drank. : You n ' have not been able to participate in religious ceremonies after the death of your father and you want some '
money, the devil beast ( dobitocul dracului ).
(...)
Drank. C ' is a letter which probably contains ... all the inner conflict of Mrs. AM ... it is of ' first CD issue, a lawyer in court,
who slept with every man and now wants to dowry the bastard, and then the dedication to Mr. Viorel Marina ... that n ' has not
been able to ' go to religious ceremonies after the death of his father and now he wants some ' money, the beast of the devil. I
quote : (...)
Drank. : Drop the spells, devil beasts.
Bl . : Drop the spells ?
Drank. : Eeee maybe Sir ... Viorel together ...
Bl . : With Madame.
Drank. : With Mrs. C ... l ' lawyer ... in court.
Bl . : court.
Drank. Who has slept with every man and now wants the dowry for the bastard ... she organizes palmistry sessions and ' other
crap like that, c ' is why ... hey, is that ' there something ' else in the ' envelope ? ... c ' is why ...
Bl . : Look ! No, nothing more hmm .
Drank. C ' is why ... Mrs A said very clearly and concisely their drop spells, beasts of the devil.
Bl . : So, leave the spells to him ...
(...)
Bl . : Is she normal ? (...) serious, ... who is Madame A. ?
Drank. : Mrs...
Bl . : So Aunt A.
Drank. : AM ... from Ploie ş ti, Prahova.
Bl . : Small Marina lady ... [the ' animator sings ] Marina Marina Marina . C ' When was the last time you seen a doctor ? C ' is
to ' first problem ... the way she designed this little letter ... no ? And two, what is the link with Radio Prahova ? Because I do
not...
Drank. C ' is for us, it ' s how c ' is written on ' envelope and letter. J ' I realized that if this n ' was not written ... in the letter, one
could say that ' it probably sent several letters and that ' she mixed them. But no ! Even in the letter we can read ... for Radio
Prahova.
Bl . : I know man ! You know how it goes ... c ' is kind of me ... if you get angry, I make you get on the radio !
(...)
Bl . : I put you on the radio and people will talk and then everyone will point the finger at you, you know ?
(...)
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 3/15
17/01/2021 ECHR
Bl . : I think this mentality is still working now !
Drank. : Maybe yes !
Bl . : Very pretty !
Drank. : Roxi asks ... without justification, I say ... could it be that the last paragraph is addressed to you ? And she's laughing on
Messenger, you know ... I'll read it again.
(...) "
6 . On the same day the applicant and CD went to the headquarters of the radio station, where they met the
manager of the radio station and had a discussion with him. During this exchange, they complained that reading
the letter from AM . when ' radio broadcast had violated their privacy. They indicated that defamatory allegations
had been made against them in the ' lack of diligence and the ' lack of consent for the dissemination of '
information within their privacy.
7 . After conducting audits and established that ' sending of the letter are exposed fabrications which she was
engaged for years in ' respect of the applicant, the radio channel disavowed ( dezminţi ) remarks broadcast live.
For this disavowal, radio expressed regret that the sense of reading the letter - which was supposed to be a
pamphlet directed against the ' sender - would have been frowned upon by some listeners and that it had
infringed the ' image of the applicant and CD
8 . The radio station broadcast this disallowance message three times on June 3, 2011, twice on June 4, 2011,
once on June 5, 2011, and twice on June 6, 2011.
9 . The applicant was invited by the radio station to exercise a " right of reply " (see paragraph 31 below),
under the internal regulations, June 6, 2011, as part of ' another radio show, right that ' interested n ' not
exercised.
10 . After ' event described above, the applicant and CD parted and ' was brought person to leave the common
home.
II. THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ' AUDIOVISUAL

11 . On 12 January 2012, the National Council ' condemned broadcasting radio station to the payment of ' a
fine after noting that, although ' program in issue was intended to be a pamphlet, she presented information likely
to affect the right to ' image and to respect the privacy of the persons to whom reference was made in the letter
read at the ' antenna, since these people n ' had not agreed to the dissemination of the information in question
(paragraph 30 below dess o us).
III. THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE ' EX-WIFE OF THE APPLICANT

12 . August 24, 2011, CD captures the national courts ' a civil action against the company that owns the radio
st
station to request r repair of detriment to his reputation. In a judgment of 1 June 2012, the Court of First
Instance Ploie ş ti ordered the radio station to repair the moral damage caused to the ' ex - applicant's wife as a
result of the dissemination of ' emission of 3 June 2011. This judgment was upheld by a judgment of the Prahova
county court dated 18 February 2013 and by a judgment of the court ' call Ploie ş ti on 11 June 2013.
IV. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE APPLICANT

A. The proceedings before the Ploie ş ti court of first instance

13 . August 10, 2012, hired applicant on an action in tort against the radio station and the two leaders, for
violation of his right to ' image and reputation, on the basis of legal provisions governing tort ( paragraph 28
below) of ' Article 30 of the Constitution (see paragraph 27 below), articles 30 and 33 of the code of the '
audiovisual relating to the protection of the dignity and the right to ' picture (paragraph 29 below) and the '
Article 8 of the Convention. Subsequently, he pointed maintain his action against the only radio station, and give
to it so far as ' it was directed against the two leaders.
14 . In the course of his action, the applicant stated that reading the letter in question contained defamatory
allegations against him and that personal information had been made public without his consent. He indicated
that this reading had serious repercussions on his family and professional life since that ' it would have been led
to separate CD, to leave the shared home and to be well away from his children and his professional image
would been reached. It also stated that ' it was suggested it to ' exercise its right of reply, but that this possibility
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 4/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

had been offered three days after ' program in question, as part of ' another show, which for him n ' made more
sense given the fact that the radio station had already issued a press disavowal meantime (paragraphs 8 and 9
above).
15 . In a judgment of 22 October 2013, the trial court Ploie ş ti granted the applicant's request and ordered the
radio station to pay him the ' equivalent in lei Romanian of $ 4 500 euros (EUR ) in damages - interests. The
court considered that the conditions of tort were met in the ' species. In particular ruled that, although they can be
st
a source of law, its final judgment of 1 June 2012 visited as part of the proceedings initiated by the ' ex-wife of
the applicant (see paragraph 12 above) and the decision of January 12, 2012 the National Board ' audiovisual
(paragraph 11 above) had established that the content of the letter read during the ' issue was likely to prejudice
the ' image and privacy. He stated that the information revealed during the ' issue were offensive, regardless of
the satirical nature of this issue, that ' they did not relate to matters of ' public interest and that ' they n ' were not
covered by the exceptions the ' Article 8 of the Convention. Finally, it held that the statement ' a witness
proposed by the applicant and the final considerations included in the procedure introduced by the ' ex-wife of '
concerned (paragraph 12 above - above) sufficient to conclude that he had undergone many a prejudice.
Accordingly, it held that ' he had been infringed the ' applicant's picture so that ' in his police commissioner as the
' applicant should s ' sure to ' impeccable image.
16 . Between January 20 and March 31, 2014, the company that owns the radio station paid the applicant, in
three installments, the amount set by the court of first instance as compensation.
B. The trial in Prahova County Court

17 . The defendant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance dated 22 October 2013
before the county court of Prahova (" the county court ").
18 . When ' hearing on April 9, 2014, two judges of the bench (NC and CAM) asked them offset the ground
that ' they had been part of the panel of three judges who issued the ' judgment of 18 February 2013, delivered by
the same court, in proceedings brought by the ' ex-wife of the applicant (see paragraph 12 above). D ' on the
record, the applicant does not forma request for disqualification of the judges.
19 . By interlocutory decision of 13 May 2014, the County Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, rejected
the request of two magistrates on the ground that ' actions brought before it was on the compensation claim of
the applicant and that these s judges ' were not expressed about the ' subject of the dispute concerning the '
interested but only about assertions relating to ' ex-wife of the latter. The court held that the situation of '
incompatibility referred to ' Article 27 § 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC - paragraph 29 below) n ' not
exist in the ' species.
20 . By a judgment of May 14, 2014, adopted by majority vote, the Prahova County Court upheld the
defendant ' s appeal and dismissed the applicant ' s action. It found in particular that the two facilitators s ' being
confined to read a letter written by a third person and n ' have not commented or ' assertions to the ' respect of the
applicant, radio station n ' had not committed a wrongful act. He added that the leaders had acted in good faith,
no personal animosity between them and requiring n ' has been advanced, and that the letter in question was in
particular the ' ex - wife of ' interested, it n ' have been implicated as accessory manner by ' assertion that he n '
had not participated in the ceremonies that took place following the death of his father.
21 . The District Court ruled that ' it n ' there was no infringement in the applicant's reputation, which "
exercising a public function - namely the police commissioner - having regard to the case law of the Court that,
when issues of ' public interest for public figures were involved, they were to be more tolerant because of their
status in society . " He considered that the ' issue of the June 3, 2011 " was actually a pamphlet whose main
theme stigma of the negative aspects of social reality " and the reading of the letter in question aimed to criticize
the approach of the sister of applicant, whose aim was to denigrate members of his family. In the County Court,
the criticism by the two leaders over the applicant's sister was likely to reduce the ' impact of the letter.
22 . The District Court also held that the views expressed by the two animators n ' had not exceeded the limits
st
established by the rules of conduct or rules of law and that the final judgment of the 1 June 2012 the trial court
in Ploiesti (paragraph 12 above) and the decision of 12 January 2012 the National Council of ' audiovisual
(paragraph 11 above) do not bind in the dispute before it.
23 . The District Court finally noted that the witness statement submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 15
above) was not enough to prove the ' existence of ' an injury to the ' interested since, to ' material time, the
complainant and CDs, although ' living always together, were already legally separated for two years. According
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 5/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

to the court, ' no injury was further proven by the fact that the applicant s ' had abstained to ' exercise the right of
reply recognized by national law (paragraph 9 above - above).
24 . L ' one of the judges requested the offset (CAM) expressed a separate opinion in which it indicated agree
with the reasoning of the lower court.
25 . The applicant became aware of the ' stop Prahova County Court July 15, 2014.
26 . Thereafter, the radio station seized the national courts ' proceedings against the applicant for
reimbursement of the amount paid following the judgment of first instance (see paragraph 16 above). By a final
judgment of 25 February 2015, the Ploieşti Court of First Instance allowed this action and ordered the applicant
to return the sum paid by the aforementioned company. Proceedings ' execution was begun against the applicant
in order to ' obtain a refund of that sum.
THE RELEVANT INTERNAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
27 . L ' article 30 of the Constitution provides in relevant part in the ' species :
Article 30 - Freedom ' speech
" 6) Freedom ' expression can not undermine the dignity, ' honor, to personal privacy or the right to his own image.
(...)
8) Civil liability for ' information or ' work brought to the attention of the public is the responsibility of ' publisher or producer,
the ' author, the ' organizer of the artistic performance, the owner of the means of dissemination, the radio or television station,
under the conditions provided for by law. Press offenses are established by law. "
28 . Articles 998 and 999 of the Civil Code relating to the ' material time torts are presented in ' case Boldea v.
/
Romania ( no.19997 02, § 19, February 15, 2007).
29 . The relevant provision in the ' species CPC read as follows in ' material time :
Article 27
“The judge can be challenged:
(...)
(7) s ' it s ' has already ruled on the ' case in question;
(...) "
o
30 . Decision N 220/2011 of the National Council of ' broadcasting of audiovisual content regulation code
provides that media service providers were required to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of ' man, the
right to life private, the right to reputation and the right to ' picture (Article 30). Similarly, it was prohibited to
disseminate information which constituted interference in private life ' a person without his consent (Article 33 §
3).
31 . The same audiovisual content regulation code provides a right of reply in favor of the person whose
rights have been violated in the context of ' a program by audiovisual presentation of the facts do not correspond
to reality (Article 49). The replica right s ' either by the ' action of the injured party on the relevant channel, or by
presenting ' recording (Article 57 § 3). This right is exercised free of charge, without comments di ffuseur within
three days after the ' agreement of the radio channel and under the same conditions as those in which the rights of
personal detached were harmed (Article 57 § 1).
PLACE
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ' ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

32 . The applicant complained of a lack of " impartiality of the Prahova County Court, arguing that the trial
bench to ' origin of ' stop 14 May 2014 included two judges who had to deal with the ' action brought by his ex-
wife about the same radio show and having seen their deportation request rejected. In his words, the fact that the
District Court dismissed the statement of the witness proposed by him to prove his injury is an example of bias
in the ' case. The applicant invokes ' Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which states in relevant part in the ' species
:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 6/15
17/01/2021 ECHR
“ Everyone has the right to have their cause heard fairly (...), by an independent and impartial tribunal, established by law, which
will decide (...) on disputes over their civil rights and obligations ( ...) "
A. Arguments of the parties

33 . The Government considered that the applicant 's case had been tried by an impartial tribunal. In this
regard, he states that the two successive proceedings examined by the magistrates implicated concerned different
subjects and persons. He then states that the applicant, represented by counsel, n ' has not raised ' exception '
incompatibility relating to judges in national courts (see paragraph 18 above - above).
34 . Finally, he argues that the District Court s ' comes out a detailed examination of the ' case on the basis of
the evidence tendered by the applicant and without taking into account the aspects mentioned by CD or evidence
used by this in the proceedings concerning it. The Government considered that the fact that the County Court for
not having based its judgment on the witness statement proposed by the applicant on is not evidence of bias, and
of ' especially since the testimony in question was dismissed so motivated.
35 . The applicant n ' has not submitted ' observations on this complaint. However, he asked the Court to grant
his request “ for the reasons set out in his application ”.
B. Assessment of the Court

1. General principles
36 . The Court refers to the principles already established in terms of criteria for assessing the ' impartiality '
bones
court, as defined in the ' stop Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá c. Portugal ([GC], no 55391/13 and 2 others,
§§ 145-149, November 6, 2018). Specifically, the Court recalls that ' impartiality is defined to ' ordinary by the '
absence of prejudice or bias and can s ' tested in various ways. According to the established case law of the
Court, for the purpose of ' Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, ' impartiality must s ' determined according to a
subjective test, taking into account the personal conviction and the judge's conduct, c ' is - to - tell by looking if it
has demonstrated bias or prejudice personnel in the case of ' species and according to an objective of determining
whether the court offered, particularly through its membership, guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate
o
doubt as to his impartiality (see, for example, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], n 73797/01, § 118, ECHR 2005-XIII,
o
and Micallef v. Malta [GC], n 17056/06, § 93, ECHR 2009).
37 . The Court recalls that, as to the subjective test, the ' personal impartiality ' a judge must be presumed until
o
' proven otherwise (see, eg, Padovani v. Italy , 26 February 1993, § 26, Series A n 257 - B). As to the objective
test, it leads to the question, when ' a collegiate court is concerned, if, regardless of the ' personal conduct of any
of its members, there are ascertainable facts which may put into question the ' impartiality that -this. In this
respect even appearances may be of the ' importance. As a result, to rule on ' whether in a given case of ' a
legitimate reason to fear ' jurisdiction a lack of ' impartiality, the terms of any such person is taken into account
but not play a decisive role. The ' decisive is whether the fear thereof can objectively justified ( Morel v. France ,
o
n 34130/96, § 42, ECHR 2000 - VI ).
38 . The Court states that in "civil matters", the mere fact that a judge, ' have already taken decisions before
the trial can not be regarded in itself justifying fears about his impartiality. What counts c ' is the ' extent of
measures taken by the judge before the trial. Likewise, the extensive knowledge of the case by the judge n ' not
imply a prejudice that would prevent the considered impartial when the decision on the merits. Finally, the '
preliminary assessment of available data also can not spend as prejudging the ' final assessment. It is important
that the assessment carried out when judgment and s ' based on the products and items discussed in ' audience (
o
Sacilor - Lormines v. France , n 65411/01, § 61, ECHR 2006 - XIII).
2. Application of the principles to the case of ' species
39 . In the ' case, the Court notes the applicant's position, alleging that his appeal n ' has not been tried by an
impartial tribunal because, according to him, two judges of the bench s ' were already pronounced on ' case
therefore that ' they had got to know of the ' Action tort brought by his ex-wife.
40 . As regards the subjective test, and given the applicant's arguments, the Court n ' is not persuaded of the '
existence ' evidence establishing that the two judges have demonstrated a personal bias.
41 . In terms of the objective test, the Court noted that ' in the ' case fears about a lack of ' impartiality are that
two of the judges belonging to the bench called to approve the applicant's appeal s ' previously pronounced under
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 7/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

the ' Action tort committed by the ' ex-wife of ' person against the same radio station to the events of June 3,
2011. It is responsible therefore be determined whether The doubts which this situation may have created in the
applicant are objectively justified.
42 . In this regard, the Court notes ' outset that the judges whose ' impartiality is challenged by the applicant
have ruled the ' matter in which the ' ex-wife of ' interested was gone in favor of the latter, condemning such the
radio station to repair the moral damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of the dissemination of ' emission of 3
June 2011 (paragraph 12 above). Given the ' end of the first case, the Court doubts that the applicant could
legitimately fear, on the part of these same judges biased against him.
43 . In any event, the Court reiterates that the answer to the question about the ' objective impartiality depends
on the circumstances of the case ( Morel , cited above, § 45). In particular, it must determine whether, given the
nature and the ' scope of functions of the above two judges in civil liability proceedings brought by ' ex - wife of
the applicant against the radio station, these have demonstrated of ' bias on decision making by the county court
in the ' case concerning the ' interested. This would be the case if the questions dealt with by the two judges in
.
the first procedure had been “ the same ” (see, conversely , Kleyn and Others v. The Netherlands [GC], nos
39343/98 and 3 others, § 200, ECHR 2003 - VI) or " similar " ( Morel , cited above, § 47) in relation to those
decided by them in the context of the applicant 's action.
44 . However, in the ' case, it is not clear from the file that this was the case. According to domestic law
applicable in the matter (see paragraph 28 above - above), the court of ' an action in tort would find s ' there was
a civil fault, injury and a causal link between these two elements. The ' existence ' liability in a given situation
should be established in light of the damage claimed by whoever s ' felt aggrieved by the fact with ' the damage.
In the ' case before the national courts dealing with their respective activities, as the applicant on his ex - wife
alleged violations of their right to reputation and their right to privacy (see paragraphs 12 and 14 above) mainly
personal aspects that needed to be established and valued by the courts in the light of the situation of each of the
injured parties and the claims concerning contained in the applicant's sister's letter read during the ' radio show.
45 . Without denying the ' existence ' a common element between the two procedures on the occurrences at '
origin of the two disputes, the Court considers that these procedures were for different elements : in each of '
them, the County Court was whether the constitutive elements of tort liability were met, starting from the
concrete personal situation of each of the plaintiffs. This assessment was made on the basis of the evidence
I
adduced and discussed at the ' hearing including the manner in which the claims of M AM have affected the
applicant's respective individual position of ' one side, and his ex-wife, of the ' other.
46 . Furthermore, it does not appear from the file that the two actions brought before the county court were
supported by the same evidence. The applicant was entitled to present evidence that " it considered relevant to
prove his injury. The mere fact that, as part of the ' action on the applicant, the County Court decided that the
witness offered by the ' concerned was not sufficient to prove the alleged damage does not constitute evidence of
bias, and of ' the less that ' objective justification has been provided by the judges to rule that testimony
(paragraph 23 above).
47 . The Court therefore notes that the two aforementioned judges were confronted with two very distinct
cases. If, because of their role in the proceedings brought by the ' ex-wife of the applicant, the judges were aware
of the facts to ' the dispute, they could not so far to have already adopted a perspective on ' Action brought by the
applicant, the county court appreciated the merits in the light of allegations about the " invasion of privacy of '
interested and evidence provided by it.
48 . Finally, the Court notes that in their application ' abstention in the procedure, only two judges generally
indicated that ' they had examined ' case concerning the ' ex-wife of the applicant (see paragraph 18 above). N '
indicating any specific reason for their offset, the Court concludes that the two judges had instead made the
o
request for the sake of caution (see, to that effect, Ilie v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], n 26220/10, § 44,
o st
September 3, 2019, and Gogan v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], n 41059/11, § 38, 1 October 2019 ). In
addition, it observes that the deportation request was examined by a panel of three judges, who, after comparing
the subjects of the two cases, issued a reasoned decision, explaining that the two cases concerned different issues
and that the two judges s ' was not pronounced on ' case against the applicant (see paragraph 19 above).
Moreover, the Court notes that ' at no point in the proceedings the applicant n ' made of two recusal request
judges in order to ' express his own concerns about their impartiality (see paragraph 18 above - above).
49 . Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Court considered that the applicant's fears are not
found in the ' case, objectively justified, and that " any violation of " Article 6 § 1 of the Convention shall be
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 8/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

detected. It s ' follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and that ' it must be rejected, pursuant to '
Article 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ' ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

50 . The applicant criticizes the national authorities for having failed in their obligation to protect his right to
public image and to respect for private life. He relied on ' Article 8 of the Convention, which provides in relevant
part in the ' species :
“ 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life (...).
2. There can be no interference by ' a public authority with the ' exercise of this right except such as this interference is
prescribed by law and that ' it is a measure which, in a democratic society, is necessary for security national, public safety or the
well - being of the country, the defense of ' order and prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, or the protection of
rights and freedoms ' others. "
A. On admissibility

1. Applicability of ' Article 8 of the Convention

51 . The Court reiterates that the right to protection of reputation is a right which falls, as an ' element of
o
privacy, the ' Article 8 of the Convention ( Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no 39954 / 08, § 83 7 February
o
2012 and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain , n 34147/06, § 40 21 September 2010).
52 . She recalls, however, that the ' Article 8 of the Convention is taken into account, the ' invasion of personal
reputation must have a certain level of seriousness and have been made so as to cause harm to the personal
enjoyment of the right to respect for private life ( Axel Springer AG , cited above, § 83, and Denisov v. Ukraine
o
[GC] , n 76639/11, § 112 25 September 2018).
53 . In the ' case, the Court must determine whether the reading of the letter at issue by the leaders of the '
radio show is likely to attract the ' implementation in the ' sort of ' Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard, it
notes that the text made public by the hosts contained references to reports that the applicant had with his close
family and referred to the serious moments of privacy of ' interested as the ' his father's funeral ( paragraph 5
above). Now it's ' This represents ' personal information that the ' individual concerned may legitimately ' expect
o
that ' they are not disclosed without his consent (see, mutatis mutandis , Saaristo and Others v. Finland , n
184/06 , § 61, 12 October 2010), the disclosure may lead to a sense of very strong ' intrusion into her privacy .
For the Court, such information can intimately touch the person concerned and are likely to ' a sufficient level of
severity to make the ' Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the case of ' species. Accordingly, in this case, the
information made public in the ' contentious radio program fall under this provision.
2. Other grounds of ' inadmissibility
54 . Noting that this complaint ' is clearly unfounded or inadmissible for other reasons referred to in ' Article
35 of the Convention, the Court declared admissible.
B. On the background

1. Arguments of the parties

55 . The applicant n ' has not submitted ' observations on the merits of the grievance. However, he asked the
Court to grant his request “ for the reasons set out in his application ”.
56 . The Government accepted that the ' judgment of 14 May 2014 Prahova County Court (paragraphs 20 - 23
above) could be interpreted as an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life. However,
he argues that this interference is justified under the ' Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
57 . In the latter regard, it states that the ' State Romania has fulfilled its positive obligation to put in place a
legislative and procedural framework capable of protecting the applicant's reputation. It states that the domestic
law provided the legal provisions available and predictable and that this regulation has allowed the ' interest
before national courts ' action in tort against the radio station. He believes that the rejection of the ' applicant's
action was intended to ' protect the right to freedom of ' expression of the press.
58 . The Government argued then that national courts dealing with the ' case have weighed the various
interests involved : d ' one hand, the ' press interest pamphleteer to enjoy the right to freedom of ' expression and
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 9/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

to make the public aware and sensitive to social realities within deviance and, ' on the other hand, the ' applicant's
interest to keep his reputation intact. Referring to the findings of the District Court, the Government said that the
court ruled that about animators s ' inscribed in the context of ' a satirical program and that ' they were intended
to discredit the ' sending of the letter, alerting the public on “ non-conforming ” social behavior . Referring to the
same conclusions, adding that the presenters read the letter during the ' radio broadcast without comment about
the applicant and that the letter focused on aspects of the private life of the ' ex-wife the ' concerned, the
comments about it n ' is presented as an ancillary basis.
59 . The Government further argues that the applicant n ' has not sufficiently proved that the reading of the
letter in question had a negative impact on his private life, his reputation or his family life. It further states that '
interested n ' brought action in tort until 10 August 2012 (paragraph 13 above - above), more ' one year and two
months after the fact, and after ' examination in first instance by the national courts of the ' Action tort brought
by his former wife (see paragraph 12 above).
60 . The Government argues finally that, the day after the broadcast of ' show, the radio station offered the
applicant an opportunity to ' exercise its right of reply and that the ' person concerned s ' is not exercised his right
of reply (see paragraph 9 above).
2. Assessment of the Court
a) General principles
61 . The Court reiterates that in cases such as that in ' examination, is at issue, not an act of ' state, but the '
alleged insufficiency of the protection afforded by the domestic courts in the privacy of applicants. Now if the '
Article 8 of the Convention is essentially that of protecting the ' individual against arbitrary interference by
public authorities, it does not merely compel the ' State s ' abstain from such interference : in this negative
undertaking can s ' positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life. They may involve
the ' adoption of measures to respect for private life even in relations between individuals ( Von Hannover v.
o bones
Germany (n 2) [GC], no 40660/08 and 60641/08 , § 98 , ECHR 2012 ). The border between the positive
obligations and negative obligations of the ' State under the ' Article 8 does not lend itself to precise definition ;
the applicable principles are nevertheless comparable. In particular, in both cases, account must be taken of the
fair balance to be struck between the competing interests at stake (ibid., § 99).
62 . When the grievance to the Court relates to an infringement of the rights protected by the ' Article 8 of the
Convention because of the ' exercise of ' others of their right to freedom of ' expression, it should take due
account, when ' pursuant to ' Article 8 of the requirements of ' Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example and
o
mutatis mutandis , Von Hannover v. Germany , n 59320/00, § 58, ECHR 2004 - VI) . Thus, in such cases the
Court will have to weigh the applicant's right to respect for privacy and the ' general interest in protecting the
freedom of ' expression, bearing in ' mind that ' it n ' there is no relationship hierarchy between the rights
o
guaranteed by the two articles ( Sousa Goucha v. Portugal , n 70434/12 , § 42 22 March 2016) .
63 . The Court recalls in this respect that ' it has already had the ' opportunity ' to state the relevant principles
o
to guide its discretion in this area ( Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], n 40454/07, §§
o
90-93, 2015 ECHR (extracts), and Von Hannover (n 2) , supra, at §§ 95-99). It thus laid down a certain number
of criteria in the context of the balancing of the rights in question ( Axel Springer AG , cited above, §§ 90-95).
The criteria applicable to the matter - provided that ' they are relevant in the ' species - are contributing to a
discussion of ' general interest, awareness of the person, the ' subject of the report, the past behavior of the person
concerned, the content, the shape and the impact of the publication (see, in this sense, Couderc and Hachette
o
Filipacchi Associés , § 93, and Von Hannover (n 2) , supra, at §§ 109 - 113). These criteria are not exhaustive,
must be transposed and adapted to the circumstances of the case ( Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH v.
o
Germany , n 51405/12, § 42 21 September 2017 ).
64 . In this context, the Court recalls that, if the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular
concerning the protection of the reputation or rights of ' others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to
communicate, in accordance with its duties and responsibilities , information and ideas on all matters of ' public
interest. In its function of a dissemination of information and ideas on issues such s ' adds the right of the public
to ' receive ( Axel Springer AG , cited above, § 79).
65 . The Court also pointed out that the contribution of the press to a debate of ' public interest can not be
restricted to the facts of ' topical debates or existing. The press is certainly a vehicle for dissemination of debates
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 10/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

' general interest, but it also has a role to reveal and bring to the public knowledge of information likely to arouse
' interest and give rise to such a debate within the company ( Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés , cited
above, § 114). Certain events in private and family life must, however, lead journalists to exercise caution and
precaution when handling them ( see, in this regard , Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés , cited above, §
140).
66 . In the ' exercise of its power of review, the Court n ' no task is to replace national jurisdictions, but it is up
to him to verify, in the light of the ' whole ' case, if decisions that ' they delivered pursuant to their power of '
appreciation be compatible with the cited provisions of the Convention ( Axel Springer AG , cited above, § 86).
If the balancing by national authorities of rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention s ' is made in
accordance with the criteria established by the case law of the Court, it must be serious reasons for it substitutes
its opinion for that of the domestic courts ( ibid. , §§ 87-88).
b) Application of the principles to the case of ' species
67 . The Court observed that the impugned allegations, which were contained in the letter from the applicant's
sister radio station, were made during ' a radio program when reading of the document by the facilitators of this
program . This letter, which included d ' first information about the private life of ' ex-wife and companion of the
applicant (see paragraph 3 above), was part of the refusal of the latter to participate in religious ceremonies that
took place after the death of his father and ' financial claim made to the family. It also contained offensive
qualifiers targeting the applicant (see paragraph 5 above).
68 . In this regard, the Court considers it useful to emphasize at the outset that its role in the ' species is
primarily to ensure that the County Court, the applicant on which contests the decision (paragraph s 20 to 23
above - above), has conducted a fair balancing of the rights in question acting ' against the criteria that ' it has
defined for this, recalled in paragraph 63 above - above.
i. On the question of the contribution to a debate of ' general interest
69 . The Court reiterated that ' Article 10 § 2 of the Convention is little scope for restrictions on freedom of '
speech when ' is involved a question of ' public interest (see, among others, Wingrove v. United - Kingdom , 25
November 1996, § 58, Reports of judgments and decisions 1996 - V). The margin ' appreciation of states is
o
reduced effect on the debate relating to the ' general interest ( Editions Plon v. France , n 58148/00, § 44,
ECHR 2004 - IV). P our check that ' a program is information of ' general importance, it is necessary to
appreciate the screen and whether this program, as a whole and given the context in which it s ' registered refers
to a question ' general interest (see, mutatis mutandis and for a publication on the privacy of ' others , Couderc
and Hachette Filipacchi Associés , cited above, § 102) .
70 . In this regard, the Court states that ' relating to a general interest matters affecting the public to such an
extent that ' it may legitimately ' is interesting, that arouse attention and concern to the substantially, especially
because ' they relate the well-being of citizens or the life of the community. This is also the case for questions
which are likely to create a strong controversy, which relate to an important social theme, or which relate to a
problem of which the public would benefit from being informed ( Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés ,
cited above, § 103 with references cited therein). The ' public interest can not be reduced to the expectations of '
a Details fond public regarding the privacy of ' others or the taste of readers for the sensational and sometimes
o
even to voyeurism ( Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC ] n 18030/11, § 162 8 November 2016).
71 . In the circumstances of this case, it is essential to determine whether ' material as a whole and the
message that ' she was trying to pass, including the reading of the letter in question, can s ' hear as constituting '
information likely to contribute to a discussion of ' general interest.
72 . In the ' case, the Court notes that the District Court held that the ' impugned radio show aimed to "
stigmatization of the negative aspects of social reality " and the reading of the letter from the applicant's sister
aimed to criticize the latter's approach, the aim of which was to publicly denigrate the members of her family
(see paragraph 21 above).
73 . The Court did not question the fact - noted by the district court - that, by reading the letter in question, the
' emission s ' was proposed as a goal to ' draw ' public attention to the fact that relations strained existing within '
families could push some of its members to make public via radio channels, aspects related to the privacy of '
other family members. However, the Court notes that there is no evidence that ' aspect mentioned s ' part of a
general discussion that took place at least in the auditors of the relevant radio station. Although ' it may be
conceivable that some listeners want to know that people can call on the radio to make public, revenge, aspects
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 11/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

of their family life or private, it n ' remains the question of very key near the manifestation of relations between
members ' family, which falls within the sphere of their private lives. The fact that the applicant 's sister chose to
broadcast family relations over the radio does not turn her approach into a matter of " general interest ".
74 . The Court further notes that, to illustrate them, leaders of the ' radio show have read the letter noting
intimate nature of information concerning ' ex-wife of the applicant, which was still in a relationship with it to '
material time, and aspects of the private life of the ' concerned (paragraph 5 above). Here there be recalled that,
in the case law of the Court, any marital problems ' a president or financial difficulties of ' a famous singer n '
o o
have not been considered as part of ' a debate ' general interest ( Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria ( n 2) , n
o
21277/05, § 52, 4 June 2009, and Hachette Filipacchi Associés ( ICI PARIS ) v. France , n 12268/03, § 43, 23
July 2009). The Court also notes that insulting epithets formulated to ' address of the applicant - such as " stupid
Devil " - were read in ' antenna without restraint. But by their very nature, this information did not contribute to a
' debate ' general interest 'and n ' not help the press to fulfill its role of " watchdog ".
75 . The Court therefore considers that, although the County Court related the topic during the ' issue to a
question that ' he judged to be of ' general interest - namely " stigmatizing aspects negatives of social reality " -
the text made public focused on the applicant's family life and revealed aspects of his private life in the context
of the present case, can not be Consider ed as contributing to a ' debate ' general interest 'for the community, in
the sense given by its case law.
ii. On the reputation of the person and the ' subject of ' emission
76 . The Court notes, to ' like national courts (see paragraphs 15 and 21 above) that the applicant occupied the
police commissioner function. However, it is not clear from the file that the ' person was a known member of the
public or renamed at least at the departmental level.
77 . In the ' case, the Court notes that the District Court only stated in general terms, referring to public
service exercised by " interested, namely the police commissioner, that" given the consistently held the Court
that, when issues of ' public interest for public figures were involved, they were to be more tolerant because of
their status in society "(see paragraph 21 above). She believes that, although ' it has mentioned the criterion in its
case law regarding the level of protection granted to public entities, the district court should have explained in its
decision why the mere fact of ' occupying the office of Commissioner police reduced the applicant 's expectation
of privacy.
iii. On the previous behavior of the person concerned
78 . The Court also notes that the District Court did s ' is not pronounced on the previous behavior of the
applicant vis-à-vis the media. In the eyes of the Court, there is no evidence that ' interested had previously
expressed a tolerance or any complacency on the publication ' aspects of his private life ; his immediate reaction
to the comments made public (see paragraph 6 above) also seems to be an indication to the contrary.
iv. On the content, form and impact of the ' issue
79 . The Court recalls that, in daily practice, journalists take decisions by which they choose the line between
the public's right to ' information and the right to ' others to respect for his private life. They therefore have the
primary responsibility to protect individuals, including public figures, from any intrusion into their privacy. The
choices that ' they operate in this regard should be based on rules of ' ethical and professional standards (
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés , cited above, § 138). However, if journalists are free to choose, from
the information that they succeed, those that ' they treat and how they will do this freedom n ' is not free of
responsibility (ibid., § 139 in fine ).
80 . As already stated above, the Court awards the ' importance to the fact that the information disclosed in the
' were private case (see paragraph 74 above - above). However, although the public proven elements were within
the sphere of privacy of ' person, the facilitators of the ' emission n ' have not taken steps to protect it. Thus, the
Court finds that the presenters of ' emission n ' have no sort the information in the letter : they read the content
thereof, including offensive remarks addressed to the applicant.
81 . The Court also notes that radio hosts have named the protagonists, namely the applicant, his ex - wife and
her sister, during the ' issue, but without seeking their consent, yet required by the national rules of professional
conduct (see paragraphs 11 and 30 above). However, given the comments made in ' towards the applicant and his
ex-wife and companion, and especially insulting words used in the letter to the ' place of ' interested, radio hosts
were suspecting that the expressions used were likely to damage the reputation of those concerned when their
names were to be revealed.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 12/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

82 . The Court then notes that the county court considered that the reading of the letter constituted a pamphlet
(see paragraph 21 above). In this regard, it recalls that satire is a form of ' artistic expression and social
commentary and, by the ' exaggeration and distortion of reality which, naturally aims to provoke and agitate. C '
is why it is necessary to ' examine with special attention any interference with the right to ' an artist or any other
o
person - such radio hosts, as in the ' species - to s ' express through this ( Alves da Silva v. Portugal , n
41665/07, § 27, 20 October 2009). In ' case Sousa Goucha (cited above, § 50), the Court s ' referred to the
criterion of " reasonable reader " to address issues concerning forms of ' satirical expression and acknowledged
that parody benefited from ' a margin ' particularly wide discretion in the context of freedom of ' expression.
83 . In the ' case, the Court does not question the finding of the national courts as to the satirical character of '
contentious radio show. However, it notes that the statement of disavowal published days ' emission expressed
regret that the sense of reading the letter - which was supposed to be a pamphlet directed against the ' sender -
would have been frowned upon by some listeners and it would have infringed the ' applicant's image and CD
(paragraph 7 above - above). Moreover, the Court considers that the organizers of the ' emission could get their
message without making the reading of the offensive word " stupid Devil " used against the applicant, who,
obviously n ' brought no added value to topic discussed and was probably kept to capture the ' listeners' attention
o
(see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Tammer v Estonia. , n 41205/98, § 67, ECHR 2001 - I, and
o
Constantinescu v. Romania , n 28871/95, § 74, ECHR 2000-VIII).
84 . The Court would recall that ' it was for the national authorities to conduct an assessment of the content of
' contentious issue so as to effect a balancing of interests. However, for her, even if ' program in question was a
satirical program, a nuanced examination of publicly available message content was needed to determine how
the information revealed on the applicant's privacy and terms used effectively contributed to debate that the court
considered of ' general interest. However, the Court considers that the information disclosed in themselves were
offensive and could have repercussions on the ' image and the applicant's reputation.
v. On the mode of ' obtaining information and its veracity
85 . The Court emphasizes all of ' first the ' importance to him respect by journalists of their duties and
responsibilities as well as ethical principles that govern their profession. In this regard, it recalls that " Article 10
of the Convention protects the right of journalists to impart information on matters of ' public interest if that '
they s ' acting in good faith, based on accurate facts, that ' they provide "information accurate and reliable ' in
o
respect of ' journalistic ethics ( Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], n 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999 - I).
86 . In the ' case, the Court notes that ' pursuing the aim to highlight the behavior of the sister of the applicant
who had sent the letter in question to the radio station, the facilitators of the ' show have read this letter which
contained references to privacy of ' person, without any prior verification of the information mentioned therein.
Now it's ' out, after verification, that they did not correspond to reality (see paragraph 7 above).
87 . Finally, the Court notes that the findings made after verifying the contents of the letter determined the
radio station to broadcast a disallowance message (see paragraph 7 above). D ' Moreover, the ' opinion of the
Court, it is understandable that the publication of this release for three days has actually been able to nullify the '
exercise by the applicant of his right of reply (paragraphs 8 , 9 and 29 below above).
c) Conclusion
88 . S ' Regarding the way national authorities dealt with the ' case, the Court notes that the Romanian courts
have fully accepted that the dispute submitted to them involved a conflict between the right to communicate
ideas and that of seeing protect reputation and rights of " others. However, it considers that the County Court n '
has not made a detailed balancing. The Court too general review resulted in the ' case the District Court not to
take into account certain aspects of ' case, which the ' has led to consider that ' he was in the presence of ' a
debate ' general interest and that the applicant was part of ' a category of people who could see their protective
expectation of privacy be restricted. Moreover, the same information content, their contribution to a debate on a
matter of ' general interest and unfounded in reality n ' were not taken into account in the balancing of interests.
89 . In these circumstances, and notwithstanding the margin ' discretion which national courts enjoy in the
matter when ' they put in balance the competing interests (see in particular the case law cited in paragraph 66
above), the Court concludes that the county court failed in its positive obligations under the ' Article 8 of the
Convention.
Consequently, there has been a violation of that provision.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 13/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

III. ON OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

90 . Finally, based on ' Article 6 of the Convention, requiring the complains of not having benefited from ' a
fair trial on account of the fact that the Prahova County Court held that the statement of the witness proposed by
him was not enough to prove the alleged damage (see paragraph 23 above).
He relies on Article 6 of the Convention.
91 . The Court reiterates that if ' Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, it regulates not
mean the " admissibility of evidence or assessed, which is primarily a matter of national law and national courts.
In principle, questions such as the weight attached by the national courts to a particular piece of evidence or to a
particular conclusion or assessment which they have had to know are beyond the control of the Court. This n '
not to take the place of fourth instance judge and does not affect under the ' angle of ' Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention the ' assessment of the national courts unless their conclusions can impersonate arbitrary or clearly
o o
unreasonable ( Bochan v. Ukraine (n 2) [GC], n 22251/08 , § 61, ECHR 2015).
92 . In the ' case, it was therefore for the district court to decide the value to attach to the witness presented by
the applicant. In the ' case, the court s ' is pronounced on it. Moreover, he explained the reasons which justified
its position on ' respect of the evidence (paragraphs 23 and 46 above). It s ' follows that this complaint is
manifestly ill-founded and that ' it must be rejected, pursuant to ' Article 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV. ON THE ' APPLICATION OF ' ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

93 . Under ' Article 41 of the Convention :

" If the Court finds that ' there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High
Contracting Party concerned allows only ' clear that ' imperfectly the consequences of this violation, the Court awards the game
injured, s ' necessary, just satisfaction. "
A. Pity

94 . The applicant request 4 500 euros (EUR) and 5 000 Romanian lei (RON) in respect of pecuniary damage
that ' he says he suffered. It indicates that these amounts correspond to the amount that ' it must return to the
radio station and charges ' lawyer who was originally granted. He also claimed 35 000 EUR non-pecuniary
damage that ' it claims to have suffered.
95 . As regards the material damage, the replica Government that as a result of the ' adoption of the final
judgment of 25 February 2015 (paragraph 26 above), the applicant was obliged to return the sum that he was
paid as damages following the ' cancellation of the legal basis for the payment of this amount. As for moral
damage, it asked the Court to consider that ' a possible violation of stop would be in itself sufficient
compensation. He adds that the sum requested by the applicant in this respect is excessive and not justified.
96 . In terms of pecuniary damage, the Court notes, with the Government, the applicant had to restore the '
compensation obtained under the domestic proceedings because of the ' cancellation of the legal basis founding
the ' granting of this sum internally. It cannot therefore be argued that the return of the sum in question caused
material damage to the applicant, and the claim made in this respect must therefore be dismissed. However, the
Court considers that the mere finding of a violation is not in the ' species sufficient material damage sustained by
the applicant. Ruling on an equitable basis as required by ' Article 41 of the Convention, it awards the ' interested
the sum of 2 000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses

97 . The applicant claimed, proof to ' support 5 000 RON about 1 040 EUR for costs and expenses. He
e
indicated that this amount corresponds to the fees of M IC Iliescu, who represents in the proceedings before the
Court since 29 January 2018.
98 . The Government considers that the sum sought is too high given the work done by the ' aforementioned
lawyer in this case, namely the presentation of the claim for just satisfaction. In addition, he questions the
e
mandate given by the applicant to M IC Iliescu for its representation in the proceedings before the Court.
e
99 . The Court notes that, ' after the documents on 24 November 2017, the applicant has appointed M IC
Iliescu to represent him in the proceedings before it. The Court found no reason to believe that this warrant
would not be valid. It recalls that, according to its case-law, an applicant can obtain reimbursement of his costs
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 14/15
17/01/2021 ECHR

and expenses only to the extent that their reality, their necessity and the reasonableness of their rate are
established. In the ' case, given the documents at its disposal, the above criteria and the nature of the comments
of the ' lawyer of the applicant (paragraphs 35 and 55 above), the Court considers it reasonable ' award the
applicant the sum EUR 100 for the costs of the proceedings before it.
C. interest on arrears

100 . The Court considers it appropriate to base the default interest rate on the rate of ' interest of the marginal
lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT TO ' UNANIMOUSLY ,

1. Declares the complaint concerning ' Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible ;

2. Said that ' there has been violation of ' Article 8 of the Convention ;

3. Said
a) that the ' respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which ' judgment becomes final
in accordance with ' Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts to be converted into the
currency of the ' respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement :
i. 2 000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount as an ' tax, non-
pecuniary damage,
ii. 100 EUR (one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount by the applicant as
an ' tax, for costs and expenses ;
b) that ' after the ' expiry of that period and up ' the payment, these amounts will be payable on ' simple
interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the period,
increased by three percentage points ;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

Done in French, and notified in writing on 26 May 2020 , pursuant to ' Article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the
Regulation.

Andrea Tamietti Jon Fridrik Kjølbro Registrar President

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 15/15