BRISC v. ROMANIA - 26238/10 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Fourth Section) [2018] ECHR 1008 (11 December 2018)

BRISC v. ROMANIA - 26238/10 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Fourth Section) [2018] ECHR 1008 (11 December 2018)

The Court found that the applicant's press release and interview did not breach the secrecy of the criminal investigation, did not identify any individual, and were limited to general information already in the public domain. The disciplinary sanction and removal were not justified as necessary in a democratic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 1008
Parties
Applicant: Ioan-Vasile Brisc; Respondent: Romanian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by European Court of Human Rights (fourth Section)
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judicial Conduct, Access to Information, Presumption of Innocence
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Disciplinary Proceedings Judicial Conduct Access to Information Presumption of Innocence

Source-derived case record

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ioan-Vasile Brisc

Applicant

Romanian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment by European Court of Human Rights (fourth Section)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary sanction and removal of the applicant as chief prosecutor for imparting information to the press violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's press release and interview did not breach the secrecy of the criminal investigation, did not identify any individual, and were limited to general information already in the public domain. The disciplinary sanction and removal were not justified as necessary in a democratic society, as the domestic authorities failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise between the applicant's right to impart information and the protection of reputation. The interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was therefore not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, resulting in a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found

Orders

  • Romania to pay the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final.