CATALAN v. ROMANIA - 13003/04 (Judgment : No violation of Freedom of expression-{general} - Freedom of expression) French Text [2018] ECHR 6 (09 January 2018)

CATALAN v. ROMANIA - 13003/04 (Judgment : No violation of Freedom of expression-{general} - Freedom of expression) French Text [2018] ECHR 6 (09 January 2018)

The applicant's dismissal was based on a breach of his duty of loyalty and reserve as a public official, in the context of a sensitive public debate on collaboration with the former secret police. The interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (protection of confidential information and the rights of the employer institution), and was necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. There was no violation of Article 10 ECHR.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 6
Parties
Applicant: Gabriel Catalan; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
09 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
No violation of Article 10 ECHR
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Public Employment, Disciplinary Sanctions, Confidentiality Obligations
Human Rights Law Labour Law Freedom of Expression Public Employment Disciplinary Sanctions Confidentiality Obligations

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Catalan

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal from public employment for statements made to the press violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's dismissal was based on a breach of his duty of loyalty and reserve as a public official, in the context of a sensitive public debate on collaboration with the former secret police. The interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (protection of confidential information and the rights of the employer institution), and was necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. There was no violation of Article 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 10 ECHR