Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2011-9/1European Court of Human Rights: Sipos¸ v. RomaniaIn a remarkable judgment the European Court of Human Rights has come to the conclusion that Romania breachedthe right of privacy of a journalist when the Romanian courts acquitted the director and the coordinator of the pressoffice of the Romanian Television Company (SRTV) in criminal defamation and insult proceedings.At the heart of the case lies a press release published by the management of the Romanian State TV channel, afterremoving the applicant, Ms. Maria Sipos¸, from a programme that she produced and presented on the NationalState channel România 1. Following her replacement as a presenter, Ms. Sipos¸ made a number of statements tothe press alleging that SRTV was engaged in censorship. The broadcaster responded in turn by issuing a pressrelease, explaining that Ms. Sipos¸ had been replaced due to audience numbers. The press release, quoted by sixnational newspapers, also made reference to Ms. Sipos¸’ emotional state due to family problems, it questionedher discernment, referred to allegedly antagonistic relations between her and her colleagues and suggested shewas a victim of political manipulation. Ms. Sipos¸ claimed that SRTV’s press release had infringed her right toher reputation, and she brought criminal proceedings before the Bucharest District Court against the channel’sdirector and the coordinator of the SRTV’s press office, accusing both of insults and defamation. The BucharestCounty Court acknowledged that the press release contained defamatory assertions about Ms. Sipos¸, but havingregard to the fact that the defendants had not intended to insult or defame her and in view of their good faith, itdismissed Ms. Sipos¸’ claims.Before the European Court of Human Rights Ms. Sipos¸ complained that the Romanian authorities had failed intheir obligation, under Article 8 of the Convention, to protect her right to respect for her reputation and privatelife against the assertions contained in the press release issued by the SRTV. Referring to the positive obligationsa State has in securing respect for private life, even in the sphere of relations between private individuals, theEuropean Court clarified that it had to determine whether Romania had struck a fair balance between, on the onehand, the protection of Ms. Sipos¸’ right to her reputation and to respect for her private life, and on the other,the freedom of expression (Article 10) of those who had issued the impugned press release. For that purposethe Court examined the content of the press release and found, in particular, that the assertions presenting Ms.Sipos¸ as a victim of political manipulation were devoid of any proven factual basis, since there was no indicationthat she had acted under the influence of any particular vested interest. As regards the remarks about heremotional state, the Court noted that they were based on elements of her private life whose disclosure did notappear necessary. As to the assessment about Ms. Sipos¸’ discernment, it could not be regarded as providing anindispensable contribution to the position of the SRTV, as expressed through the press release, since it was basedon elements of the applicant’s private life known to the SRTV’s management. The Court noted that, given thechilling effect of criminal sanctions, a civil action would have been more appropriate, but it concluded nonethelessthat the statements had crossed the acceptable limits and that the Romanian courts had failed to strike a fairbalance between protecting the right to reputation and freedom of expression. Thus, there had been a violationof Article 8, and Ms. Sipos¸ was awarded EUR 3,000 in damages.One dissenting judge, Judge Myer, drew attention to a particular issue in this case. Although the Third Chamberof the Court recognized that criminal sanctions have a chilling effect on speech and that it would have been moreappropriate to initiate the civil proceedings available to the applicant, nevertheless the majority of the EuropeanCourt found that the criminal sanction of the director and press officer of the SRTV was necessary in a democraticsociety in order to protect Ms. Sipos¸’ right to her reputation and private life, an approach that contrasts withResolution 1577(2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe urging the decriminalization ofdefamation and insult.• Arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme rendu le 3 mai 2011 (troisième section), affaire Sipos¸ c. Roumanie , requête n◦ 26125/04(Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), case of Sipos¸ v Romania, No. 26125/04 of 3 May 2011)http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=15260FRDirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaIRIS 1The 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: Sipoş v. Romania

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2045046/file/6767583.pdf

European court of human rights: Sipoş v. Romania

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography