NICOLESCU v. ROMANIA - 38566/04 (Communicated Case) [2012] ECHR 1321 (03 July 2012)

NICOLESCU v. ROMANIA - 38566/04 (Communicated Case) [2012] ECHR 1321 (03 July 2012)

The domestic courts found that the journalists' articles were not defamatory or insulting, were based on legitimate public interest, and did not harm the applicants' reputation or dignity. The courts held that the press had a duty to report on the investigation and that the applicants' rights were not violated by the publication or the judicial process.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 1321
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Nicolescu; Applicant: Estera Nicolescu; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
03 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Communicated Case
Outcome
Applicants' claims dismissed by domestic courts; journalists acquitted; civil claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Right to Reputation, Fair Trial, Insult, Journalistic Ethics
Human Rights Law Media Law Defamation Freedom of Expression Right to Reputation Fair Trial Insult Journalistic Ethics

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Nicolescu

Applicant

Estera Nicolescu

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Communicated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domestic courts struck a fair balance between the applicants' right to protection of reputation and the journalists' right to freedom of expression under Article 8 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the applicants received a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts found that the journalists' articles were not defamatory or insulting, were based on legitimate public interest, and did not harm the applicants' reputation or dignity. The courts held that the press had a duty to report on the investigation and that the applicants' rights were not violated by the publication or the judicial process.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claims dismissed by domestic courts; journalists acquitted; civil claim rejected.