Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Romania violated the right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by convicting a journalist for civil defamation. The case concerned a journalist, Ghiulfer Predescu, who was ordered by domestic courts to pay damages and issue a public apology after making statements on a televised debate about alleged ties between the mayor of Constanţa and criminal groups. The Court found that her statements, made during a public discussion on a matter of general interest, constituted value judgments rather than factual allegations requiring proof. It noted that the Romanian courts failed to strike a fair balance between protecting the mayor’s reputation and the journalist’s right to free expression. The financial penalty imposed was also deemed excessive, creating a chilling effect on journalism. Accordingly, the Court held that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society.

---

Facts

The case concerns an application filed before the Europen Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by Ms. Ghiulfer Predescu, a Romanian journalist, alleging a violation of her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The dispute arose from statements she made during a televised debate regarding a violent incident in the city of Constanţa, Romania.

On the night of 12–13 August 2006, a group of approximately 50 to 80 armed individuals were involved in an attack at the seaside resort of Mamaia, causing severe damage to multiple locations, including Hotel F. The hotel was owned by a company in which R.M., the mayor of Constanţa since 2000, was a shareholder. The attack led to extensive media coverage and public debate regarding security issues in the city.

Following the incident, R.M. agreed to participate in a television program broadcast on “R.,” a national television channel—hosted by journalist A.G. Ms. Predescu intervened during the discussion and made statements suggesting that the city of Constanţa was divided between criminal factions, one of which was allegedly associated with R.M. She also suggested that local law enforcement had been hesitant to intervene in violent incidents due to political connections.

During the broadcast, R.M. strongly denied any association with criminal groups and dismissed Ms. Predescu’s claims as baseless. Furthermore, he accused her of spreading misinformation, asserted that her remarks created a misleading perception of the city’s security situation, and explicitly told her to “stop lying.”

On 24 October 2006, R.M. filed a civil complaint against Ms. Predescu in the Constanţa District Court. He argued that her statements defamed him by implying he was connected to criminal groups. He claimed that her remarks were made in bad faith and had caused significant damage to his reputation as a public official.

In his complaint, R.M. requested the court to order Ms. Predescu to publish a public letter of apology, publish the final judgment in two newspapers (one national, one local), and pay 200,000 Romanian lei (RON) in non-pecuniary damages.

R.M. contended that Ms. Predescu’s statements were not merely expressions of opinions but allegations of fact, which had not been verified before being broadcast on national television. He argued that her claims contributed to public mistrust in the local government and caused personal distress.

Ms. Predescu defended her statements by asserting that they were made in good faith and based on publicly available information. She emphasized that she had referenced previous media reports and local knowledge about criminal activities in Constanţa. Ms. Predescu argued that her statements were an attempt to highlight concerns about public safety and governance, rather than a personal attack on R.M.

On 11 October 2007, the Constanţa District Court dismissed R.M.’s claim, ruling that Ms. Predescu’s statements constituted opinions expressed in good faith, rather than factual allegations. To this court, her comments were supported by articles from the local press and investigative reports on corruption and organized crime in the region. The decision also underscored that the discussion took place in the context of a broader public debate on security and governance, which is a matter of public interest.

The court referred to ECtHR case law on freedom of expression, such as Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes v. Portugal, emphasizing that journalists play a crucial role in democratic societies and that their statements should be assessed based on whether they were made in good faith. The court found no evidence that Ms. Predescu had acted maliciously or with the intent to defame R.M.

R.M. appealed the decision before the Constanţa County Court, arguing that Ms. Predescu’s statements were not protected opinions but defamatory factual allegations. According to R.M., the journalist had not provided concrete evidence to support her claims, and associating his name with criminal groups had caused severe damage to his public image and political career.

On 29 May 2008, the Constanţa County Court overturned the first-instance ruling. It held that Ms. Predescu’s statements implied a direct involvement from R.M. in criminal activities, constituting an attack on his reputation. The court also considered that the journalist’s allegations had been made in bad faith—as they lacked factual support—and that the severity of her statements, which were broadcast during prime time on a national television channel, justified legal consequences. Thus, the County Court concluded that her statements were intended to discredit R.M. rather than inform the public—and ruled that freedom of expression does not protect defamatory allegations that lack a factual basis.

The County Court ordered Ms. Predescu to pay R.M. 50,000 RON in damages and 7,197 RON in legal costs, publish the judgment in a national and a local newspaper at her own expense, and issue a written public apology within fifteen days of the final judgment.

Ms. Predescu appealed to the Constanţa Court of Appeal, arguing that her statements were based on journalistic sources, were part of a legitimate public debate, and that R.M. was a public official—making him subject to wider criticism. She also considered that the penalty imposed on her was excessive and could discourage investigative journalism.

On 24 November 2008, the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Predescu’s appeal. It ruled that the journalist presented unverified claims as fact rather than opinion, failed to demonstrate good faith in her reporting, and that the financial penalty was justified—given the damage to R.M.’s reputation. The appellate court stated that journalists have a duty to verify information before making serious allegations about individuals. Hence, it concluded that Ms. Predescu disregarded ethical journalistic standards by making statements that lacked concrete evidence.

The court also addressed the proportionality of the sanction, stating that the awarded damages were only a quarter of the amount R.M. initially claimed. It held that if Ms. Predescu had issued a formal apology earlier, the court might have considered reducing the compensation.

Ms. Predescu later complied with the judgment, publishing the required statements and paying the damages.  Subsequently, she filed a complaint before the ECtHR on 26 May 2009, arguing that Romania violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

---

Decision Overview

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania on 27 June 2017.  The main issue it analyzed was whether the decisions of the domestic courts—which found the applicant liable for defamation after she made statements about the potential links between the mayor of Constanța and local criminal groups—violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

The applicant argued that her statements were opinions expressed in good faith on a matter of public interest. She maintained that the comments, which were made in the context of a broader discussion on crime and governance, did not constitute an attack on R.M.’s reputation but rather reflected observations based on publicly available information. She emphasized that the statements had a factual basis, as they were grounded in previously published journalistic investigations. Furthermore, she contended that the imposed penalties—which amounted to the equivalent of 116 minimum monthly salaries at the time—were excessive and had a chilling effect on investigative journalism—discouraging journalists from engaging in public scrutiny of government officials.

The Romanian Government, for its part, countered that the penalties were lawful and justified in order to protect R.M.’s reputation. It argued that the applicant’s statements went beyond permissible journalistic critique and constituted factual allegations rather than subjective commentary. The Government further maintained that the domestic courts properly balanced the competing interests between freedom of expression and the protection of the reputation of others and that the awarded damages were proportionate given the seriousness of the defamatory statements.

At the outset of its analysis, the ECtHR considered that the penalties imposed on the applicant were an interference with her right to freedom of expression. Moreover, it also concluded that this interference was not necessary in a democratic society. The Court emphasized the importance of the press in ensuring public accountability, noting that the applicant’s statements were made in the context of a debate on a matter of public interest—namely, the role of local authorities in maintaining public order. On this point, the ECtHR reiterated that politicians and elected officials, such as R.M., must tolerate greater scrutiny than private individuals. In this regard, it added that: “The role of the press certainly entails a duty to alert the public where it is informed about presumed misappropriation on the part of local elected representatives and public officials.” [para. 47]

The Court further assessed the nature of the applicant’s statements, distinguishing between factual allegations and value judgments. To it, domestic courts mischaracterized the applicant’s remarks as factual claims rather than subjective opinions. For the ECtHR, the applicant engaged in a discussion about governance and public safety, presenting her statements in the context of a broader debate rather than as definitive assertions. The Court underscored that journalistic freedom includes the right to use some degree of exaggeration or provocation, particularly when discussing matters of public concern.

Next, the Court argued that domestic courts failed to provide sufficient justification for concluding that the applicant acted in bad faith. While the first-instance court ruled in the applicant’s favor, citing the lack of evidence regarding harm to R.M.’s reputation, the appellate courts reversed this decision without properly addressing why they considered the applicant’s remarks to be defamatory. The Court observed that R.M. had ample opportunity to respond to the applicant’s statements during the television debate but chose to react with hostility rather than refute her claims with factual evidence. The ECtHR criticized the appellate courts for failing to engage in a proper balancing exercise, highlighting that domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their conclusions that the applicant had acted in bad faith.

The Court also examined the severity of the sanctions imposed, noting that financial penalties in defamation cases must be proportionate to the harm suffered. In light of this, it considered that the awarded damages—50,000 RON in compensation, 7,197 RON in legal costs, and the obligation to publish the judgment—were excessive and could dissuade journalists from covering similar issues in the future.

Ultimately, the ECtHR concluded that Romanian courts failed to strike a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of the reputation of others. It held that the interference with freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society and said that the State violated Article 10 of the ECHR.  Hence, the Court awarded the applicant €14,000 in pecuniary damages, and  €4,500 in non-pecuniary damages for the distress suffered. Additionally, she was granted €3,369 to cover her legal costs.

---