BUCUR AND TOMA v. ROMANIA - 40238/02 - HEJUD (French text) [2013] ECHR 14 (08 January 2013)

BUCUR AND TOMA v. ROMANIA - 40238/02 - HEJUD (French text) [2013] ECHR 14 (08 January 2013)

The Court found that the criminal conviction of the first applicant for whistleblowing on illegal surveillance was not necessary in a democratic society and violated Article 10. The interception and retention of the second and third applicants' communications violated Article 8 due to lack of sufficient safeguards and oversight. The applicants did not have access to an effective remedy, violating Article 13. The Court also found a violation of Article 6 due to lack of equality of arms and access to evidence.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 14
Parties
Applicant: Constantin Bucur; Applicant: Mircea Toma; Applicant: Sorana Toma; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; violations found
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Right to a Fair Trial, Whistleblower Protection, State Secrets, Surveillance, Effective Remedy
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Constitutional Law Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Right to a Fair Trial Whistleblower Protection State Secrets +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constantin Bucur

Applicant

Mircea Toma

Applicant

Sorana Toma

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal conviction of the first applicant for disclosing classified information violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the interception and retention of the second and third applicants' communications violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life)
  3. 3 Whether there was a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) in the criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the criminal conviction of the first applicant for whistleblowing on illegal surveillance was not necessary in a democratic society and violated Article 10. The interception and retention of the second and third applicants' communications violated Article 8 due to lack of sufficient safeguards and oversight. The applicants did not have access to an effective remedy, violating Article 13. The Court also found a violation of Article 6 due to lack of equality of arms and access to evidence.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; violations found

Orders

  • Romania to pay just satisfaction to the applicants
  • Romania to take measures to ensure compliance with Articles 8, 10, and 13 of the Convention