Bucur and Toma v. Romania - 40238/02 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 291 (08 January 2013)

Bucur and Toma v. Romania - 40238/02 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 291 (08 January 2013)

The Court found that the applicant's criminal conviction for disclosing irregular telephone tapping was not necessary in a democratic society, as the information was of significant public interest, internal remedies were ineffective, and the applicant acted in good faith. The interference with his freedom of expression under Article 10 was unjustified. Violations of Article 6 and Article 8 (with Article 13) were also found.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 291
Parties
Applicant: Bucur; Applicant: Toma; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 in respect of the first applicant; violation of Article 6 in respect of the first applicant; violation of Article 8 and Article 13 combined with Article 8 in respect of the second and third applicants.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Whistleblower Protection, Right to Privacy, Fair Trial
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Constitutional Law Freedom of Expression Whistleblower Protection Right to Privacy Fair Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bucur

Applicant

Toma

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal conviction of the applicant for disclosing irregular telephone tapping procedures violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether there was a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
  3. 3 Whether there was a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) combined with Article 8

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's criminal conviction for disclosing irregular telephone tapping was not necessary in a democratic society, as the information was of significant public interest, internal remedies were ineffective, and the applicant acted in good faith. The interference with his freedom of expression under Article 10 was unjustified. Violations of Article 6 and Article 8 (with Article 13) were also found.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 in respect of the first applicant; violation of Article 6 in respect of the first applicant; violation of Article 8 and Article 13 combined with Article 8 in respect of the second and third applicants.

Orders

  • Award of non-pecuniary damages to each applicant ranging from EUR 7,800 to EUR 20,000
  • Rejection of the first applicant's claim for pecuniary damage