ILEANA CONSTANTINESCU v. ROMANIA - 32563/04 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 2061 (11 December 2012)

ILEANA CONSTANTINESCU v. ROMANIA - 32563/04 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 2061 (11 December 2012)

The Court found that the applicant's conviction constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression, which was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim (protection of reputation). However, the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the conviction, did not give due weight to the context of public interest, and imposed a disproportionate penalty. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 2061
Parties
Applicant: Ileana Constantinescu; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 ECHR found; just satisfaction awarded.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Right to Reputation, Article 10 ECHR
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Right to Reputation Article 10 ECHR

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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ileana Constantinescu

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's criminal conviction for defamation violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's conviction constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression, which was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim (protection of reputation). However, the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the conviction, did not give due weight to the context of public interest, and imposed a disproportionate penalty. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 ECHR found; just satisfaction awarded.

Orders

  • Romania to pay the applicant 1,000 EUR for pecuniary damage.
  • Romania to pay the applicant 7,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage.