Rosiianu v. Romania - 27329/06 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 803 (24 June 2014)

Rosiianu v. Romania - 27329/06 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 803 (24 June 2014)

The Court found that the authorities' failure to execute final judicial decisions granting the applicant access to public information deprived him of effective access to a court and interfered with his freedom of expression as a journalist. The respondent failed to justify the non-enforcement or demonstrate that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 803
Parties
Applicant: Roşiianu; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
24 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 6 §1 and Article 10 (unanimous)
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Access to Information, Enforcement of Judgments, Right to a Fair Trial
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Access to Information Enforcement of Judgments Right to a Fair Trial

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roşiianu

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-enforcement of final judicial decisions granting a journalist access to public information violated Article 6 §1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the authorities' failure to execute final judicial decisions granting the applicant access to public information deprived him of effective access to a court and interfered with his freedom of expression as a journalist. The respondent failed to justify the non-enforcement or demonstrate that the interference was prescribed by law or pursued a legitimate aim.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 6 §1 and Article 10 (unanimous)

Orders

  • Romania to pay the applicant 4,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage