Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2014-8/4European Court of Human Rights: Ros¸iianu v. RomaniaThe European Court of Human Rights has again reiterated that collecting information and guaranteeing access todocuments held by public authorities is a crucial right for journalists in order to be able to report on matters ofpublic interest, helping to implement the right of the public to be properly informed on such matters. In the caseof Ioan Romeo Ros¸iianu, a presenter of a regional television programme, the Court came to the conclusion thatthe Romanian authorities had violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing accessto documents of a public nature, which he had requested at Baia Mare, a city in the north of Romania. The Court’sjudgment clarifies that efficient enforcement mechanisms are necessary in order to make the right of access topublic documents under Article 10 practical and effective.In his capacity as a journalist, Ros¸iianu had contacted the Baia Mare municipal authorities, requesting disclosureof several documents, as part of his investigation into how public funds were used by the city administration.His requests were based on the provisions of Law no. 544/2001 on freedom of public information. As the replyfrom the mayor did not contain the requested information, Ros¸iianu applied to the administrative court. In threeseparate decisions, the Cluj Court of Appeal ordered the mayor to disclose most of the requested information. TheCourt of Appeal noted that, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Law no. 544/2001on freedom of public information, Ros¸iianu was entitled to obtain the information in question, which he intended touse in his professional activity. The letters sent by the mayor of Baia Mare did not represent adequate responsesto those requests. The Cluj Court of Appeal ordered the mayor to pay the applicant EUR 700 in respect of non-pecuniary damages, and held that his refusal to disclose the requested information amounted to a denial of theright to receive and impart information, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention. Mr Ros¸iianuapplied for enforcement of the decisions, but the mayor refused to comply. The decisions delivered by the ClujCourt of Appeal remained unenforced.Ros¸iianu complained about the failure to execute the judicial decisions, relying on Article 6 §1 (right to a fairhearing). Relying on Article 10, he alleged that the failure to execute the decisions of the Cluj Court of Appealamounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression.With regard to the complaint under Article 6 §1 of the Convention, it is observed that the mayor had suggestedthat Ros¸iianu should come in person to the town hall to obtain several thousand photocopied pages, which wouldhave included having to pay for the reproduction costs, but that the domestic courts had concluded that suchan invitation could not possibly be considered as an execution of a judicial decision ordering the disclosure ofinformation of a public nature. The European Court found that the non-enforcement of the final judicial decisionsordering disclosure to Mr Ros¸iianu of public information had deprived Ros¸iianu of effective access to a court, whichamounted to a violation of Article 6 §1 of the Convention.With regard to the complaint under Article 10, the Court noted that Ros¸iianu was involved in the legitimate gath-ering of information on a matter of public importance, namely the activities of the Baia Mare municipal adminis-tration. The Court reiterated that in view of the interest protected by Article 10, the law cannot allow arbitraryrestrictions that may become a form of indirect censorship should the authorities create obstacles to the gather-ing of information. Gathering information is indeed an essential preparatory step in journalism and is an inherent,protected part of press freedom. Given that the journalist’s intention had been to communicate the informationin question to the public and thereby to contribute to the public debate on good public governance, his rightto impart information had clearly been impaired. The Court found that there had not been adequate executionof the judicial decisions in question. It also observed that the complexity of the requested information and theconsiderable work required in order to select or compile the requested documents had been referred to solely toexplain the impossibility of providing that information rapidly, but could not be a sufficient or pertinent argumentto refuse access to the requested documents. The Court concluded that the Romanian authorities had adducedno argument showing that the interference in Ros¸iianu’s right had been prescribed by law, or that it pursued oneor several legitimate aims, hence finding a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court held that Romaniawas to pay the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,748 in respect of costs andexpenses.• Arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (troisième section), affaire Ros¸iianu c. Roumanie, requête n◦ 27329/06 du 24 juin 2014(Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), case of Ros¸iianu v. Romania, Appl. No. 27329/06 of 24 June 2014)http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=17158FRIRIS 1Dirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaThe objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 2

European Court of Human Rights: Roşiianu v. Romania

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5766330/file/5766331.pdf

European Court of Human Rights: Roşiianu v. Romania

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography