Grigore PALADE v Romania - 37441/05 [2010] ECHR 1344 (31 August 2010)

Grigore PALADE v Romania - 37441/05 [2010] ECHR 1344 (31 August 2010)

The application was inadmissible because the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 and 8 were manifestly ill-founded; domestic courts provided relevant and sufficient reasons, struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and right to reputation, and the refusal of legal aid did not restrict access to court.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 1344
Parties
Applicant: Grigore Palade; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
31 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility
Outcome
application inadmissible
Legal Topics
Defamation, Fair Trial, Right to Reputation, Freedom of Expression, Legal Aid
Human Rights Media Law Civil Procedure Defamation Fair Trial Right to Reputation Freedom of Expression Legal Aid

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grigore Palade

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of legal aid and exclusion of evidence violated Article 6 § 1 (right to fair trial)
  2. 2 Whether press articles reporting on criminal trial violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
  3. 3 Whether domestic courts struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and right to reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The application was inadmissible because the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 and 8 were manifestly ill-founded; domestic courts provided relevant and sufficient reasons, struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and right to reputation, and the refusal of legal aid did not restrict access to court.

Court Disposition

application inadmissible

Orders

  • application rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention