Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in a case concerning two police officers who sought damages after a private individual (C.T.) posted their photograph, disclosed one officer’s name, and criticized their professional conduct on Facebook, which generated offensive third-party comments. After Romanian courts dismissed the officers’ tort action, the ECtHR reviewed whether domestic authorities had adequately protected the applicants’ right to respect for private life and reputation. The Court found that the domestic courts had conducted a proper balancing exercise between competing interests. It held that C.T.’s post concerned matters of public interest regarding police conduct; the applicants, while not public figures, were subject as public servants to wider criticism limits than ordinary citizens; the photograph was taken in a public setting and did not portray them unfavorably; C.T. had acted in good faith without using offensive language; and C.T. could not be held responsible for third-party comments she neither invited nor had power to control. The Court concluded that holding C.T. liable could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression online, especially for private individuals acting in good faith to raise awareness about matters of public concern.

---

Facts

The applicants, Zoltán-Ovidiu Toth and Alin Crișan, were police officers with the Oradea local police force. On 8 April 2016, they fined C.T. and her mother for a minor offence related to household waste disposal and for their alleged conduct towards the officers. C.T. challenged the fine in court, where it was established that she had deposited waste in an unauthorized location but had not insulted the officers. The courts also determined that the applicants had behaved inappropriately toward C.T., based on testimonial evidence and a forensic expert report showing that C.T. had sustained bodily injuries on the date of the incident. The courts ultimately reduced the fine imposed on C.T. [para. 6]

On the same day of the incident, C.T. posted on a public Facebook group called “Oradea is us” (Oradea suntem noi), describing the incident and including a photograph of the applicants in uniform. She alleged that the officers were aggressive and unwilling to let her place her child in the car before addressing the waste issue. She also alleged they verbally assaulted and pushed her and her mother, and prevented her mother from driving away. The post received 92 comments, approximately 160 likes, and was shared 73 times. [paras. 7-9]

The Facebook post generated numerous comments from other users who referred to the applicants and local police officers in disrespectful terms, using expressions such as “scumbags,” “impostors,” “idiots,” and other derogatory language. One commenter expressed a desire to meet the applicants to “wipe the arrogance off their faces,” while others claimed they had previous negative experiences with the second applicant specifically. In response to comments, C.T. disclosed the second applicant’s full name after being asked about his identity. In another reply, she denied that her intention had been to defame the applicants. On August 19, 2016, and on an unspecified date, authorities discontinued both the disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in connection with the April 8 events, apparently due to a lack of sufficient evidence. [paras. 10-12]

On 14 February 2017, the applicants filed a tort action against C.T., claiming 50,000 Romanian lei (approximately €11,111) in non-pecuniary damages and requesting an apology in local newspapers and on the Facebook group. They alleged defamation and reputational damage due to distorted information, unauthorized dissemination of their photograph and the second applicant’s name, and offensive third-party comments. The applicants further contended that C.T.’s allegations about verbal and physical assault were untrue and that it was actually C.T. who had been aggressive toward them while her mother had insulted them and nearly injured them with her car. They further claimed that because of the post, their family and friends had questioned their professional conduct, random individuals had stopped them on the street to question them about alleged abuses and their employer had initiated disciplinary proceedings against them. [paras. 13-14]

On 26 June 2017, the Oradea District Court dismissed the claim, holding that the post had not harmed their image despite generating some trivial comments. The applicant’s appeal that their image had been harmed by the post itself, not by the actual events was dismissed by the Bihor County Court on 12 January 2018, which found that the post merely reflected C.T.’s perception of the event without initiating a defamatory campaign. [paras. 15-21]

On February 28, 2019, the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ further appeal, ruling that C.T.’s post was a legitimate exercise of her freedom of expression, prompted by her dissatisfaction with the officers’ conduct. The Court determined that C.T. could not be held responsible for third-party comments, that her post contained accurate information without offensive content, and that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for public service employees than for ordinary citizens. The Court also held that sharing the officers’ photograph and the second applicant’s name did not affect them as they were considered ‘public persons’ and the photograph did not portray them in an undignified manner. [paras. 22-25]

---

Decision Overview

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously delivered the decision.

The primary issue before the Court was to determine whether the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between C.T.’s right to freedom of expression and the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and reputation under Article 8 when dismissing the proceedings the police officers brought against her regarding her Facebook post.

The applicants contended that though the State had established a legal framework for protecting their rights, the national courts failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests and adequately protect their right to respect for private life and reputation. They maintained that as public servants, they were prohibited from engaging in social media conversations to counter misinformation, making court proceedings their only remedy. They contended that C.T. had disseminated untruthful information to a wide audience on Facebook, which national courts recognized as a public space, and that she had not acted in good faith nor simply informed the community about an event. [paras. 36-38] The applicants further asserted that requesting the removal of the post and comments would have been pointless since the damage to their reputation had already occurred, with the information receiving maximum attention immediately after posting. They claimed their image had been affected as evidenced by questions from strangers, friends, and acquaintances about their conduct, as well as proceedings initiated by their employer. Finally, they argued that the Court should consider its own findings in the Sanchez v. France case, which they believed legitimized their decision to lodge their application. [paras. 39-40]

The Government contended that the national authorities had established a legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ rights, and the courts had struck a fair balance between competing interests with relevant and sufficient reasoning. They argued that the courts had properly assessed the case in line with the Court’s case law, finding that C.T.’s post expressed her opinion about the applicants’ professional conduct, contained accurate information, and used inoffensive language. [para. 42] The Government distinguished this case from Sanchez, noting the applicants were not politicians, though they had not denied being public figures subject to criticism. They maintained that C.T.’s post addressed matters of public interest without bad intentions, the photograph was not taken secretively, and the Facebook group had limited membership engaged in community debate. Additionally, they asserted there was no evidence of negative consequences for the applicants’ professional lives or reputation, as disciplinary proceedings were discontinued and no high-circulation news outlets reported on the events. Finally, they pointed out that the applicants had not requested the removal of the post or comments, suggesting their action was primarily motivated by financial interests rather than reputational concerns. [paras. 45-46]

The Court reiterated that Article 8 of the Convention not only protects individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities but may also impose positive obligations on the State to secure respect for private life in relations between individuals. It emphasized that regardless of whether a case involved positive or negative obligations, the applicable principles remained similar – a fair balance must be struck between competing interests, with the State enjoying a certain margin of appreciation. The Court referred to Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), Țiriac, Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, and Axel Springer AG v. Germany, in establishing that while Article 10 guarantees freedom of expression, this freedom is not wholly unrestricted, as persons exercising this right undertake “duties and responsibilities” and must not overstep certain limits, particularly regarding respect for others’ reputation and rights. In cases of conflict between Articles 8 and 10, the Court noted that both rights deserve equal respect, and the outcome should not vary based on which article was invoked. [paras. 48-50] It then outlined relevant balancing criteria, including contribution to public interest debate, the notoriety of the person affected, prior conduct, circumstances of photograph taking, and content/consequences of publication. [paras. 47-51]

Regarding internet-specific considerations, the Court acknowledged additional criteria relevant for balancing exercises in cases involving online content, including the status of the alleged perpetrator, their specific liability for third-party comments, steps taken regarding those comments, and possibilities for holding comment authors liable instead, citing Sanchez v. France. The Court recognized the internet as a principal means for exercising freedom of expression and participating in discussions of general interest, referencing Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia and Delfi AS v. Estonia. However, it also highlighted the greater risk of harm posed by internet content compared to traditional press, as unlawful speech can spread worldwide in seconds and remain persistently available online. The Court emphasized that publishing photographs requires particular consideration for the rights of others, distinguishing between reporting facts that contribute to democratic debate versus reporting private life details merely to satisfy curiosity, referencing Hájovský v. Slovakia. Lastly, the Court held that its supervisory role was not to replace national courts but to review whether their decisions were compatible with Convention provisions, noting it would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of domestic courts when they had properly balanced rights according to established criteria. [paras. 52-56]

The Court examined whether the national authorities adequately protected the applicants’ right to respect for their private life after C.T. published their photograph and the second applicant’s name on Facebook with critical comments about their conduct as police officers. [paras. 57-59] The Court needed to determine if the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between competing rights using established criteria from its case law since the applicants disagreed with the domestic courts’ decision despite having access to appropriate legal remedies. The Court found that C.T.’s post contributed to a debate of general interest concerning the conduct of law enforcement officials, which was inherently a matter of significant public interest as acknowledged in cases like Dyundin v. Russia and Bild GmbH & Co. KG v. Germany. [paras. 60-63] The post raised questions about the proper functioning of the State, specifically regarding allegedly abusive and violent conduct by local police officers while carrying out professional obligations. The Court confirmed that allegations of police brutality or misconduct were inherently matters of significant public interest.

The Court disagreed with the domestic courts’ characterization of the applicants as “public persons”. Referencing Bild GmbH & Co. KG v. Germany, the Court noted that ordinary police officers could not be considered public figures in the same sense as politicians unless they sought public attention, which the applicants had not done. [paras. 64-69] The Court found no evidence that the applicants sought to be in the public eye either before or after C.T. posted her message, or that their public exposure exceeded what could reasonably be expected from ordinary police officers carrying out official duties. Nevertheless, the Court agreed with the domestic courts that as public servants acting in their official capacity, the applicants were subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary individuals, citing Stancu and Others v. Romania. [paras. 70-71] The applicants had acknowledged they were public servants, and while not high-ranking officials, they never denied they were acting in their official capacity during the events in question, which subjected them to wider limits of acceptable criticism.

Regarding the circumstances of the photograph, the Court determined that it was taken in a public setting while the applicants were performing their duties, and it did not portray them in an unfavorable light or undermine their public standing. [paras. 72-80] The Court noted that photograph publication generally constitutes a more substantial interference with private life than merely communicating a person’s name, referencing Vučina v. Croatia. However, the Court agreed with the domestic courts that the applicants could not have excluded the possibility of being photographed given their status and the public context of their interaction with C.T.

In assessing the content of C.T.’s post, the Court agreed with the domestic courts that it exclusively concerned the applicants’ professional activities without mentioning details of their private lives and did not contain offensive or degrading content. [paras. 81-85] The Court noted that the post conveyed nothing more than C.T.’s critical impressions of the applicants’ professional conduct and contained neither personal insults, disparaging remarks, nor unsubstantiated allegations. The Court found evidence that C.T. had acted in good faith, had also used official channels to report her grievances, and had attempted to distance herself from offensive third-party comments.

The Court considered that while C.T.’s expressions were provocative, persons reacting to perceived unlawful conduct by public servants are allowed a degree of exaggeration or immoderate statements. Regarding the consequences of the post, the Court observed that despite being on a public platform, it generated limited actual public attention. [paras. 88-89] C.T. was a private individual without significant influence, which reduced the potential impact of her statements, unlike in the Sanchez case where the individual was more influential. The Court also noted the applicants’ acknowledgment that the post’s visibility would have decreased significantly over time.

Regarding the third-party comments, the Court found no evidence that C.T. invited or endorsed offensive expressions, nor that she had the power to control content posted by others. [para. 90] The applicants failed to prove that C.T. was the administrator of the Facebook group or that she had failed to comply with any duties that could reasonably be expected of a private individual. The Court characterized the comments as “vulgar abuse” common on internet platforms, which would likely be understood as non-serious conjecture, referencing Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary. The Court also noted that the applicants had not attempted to bring to justice any of the authors of those comments.

The Court concluded that the national courts had conducted a thorough balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case law and saw no strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts. The Court found insufficient evidence of a serious negative impact on the applicants’ private and professional lives that would override the public’s interest in receiving the information. It determined that making C.T. liable for third-party comments could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression on the internet, especially for private individuals acting in good faith. [para. 95]

Ultimately, the Court ruled that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

---