FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DANEŞ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (No. 2)
(Applications nos. 32368/19 and 2 others)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 February 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Daneş and Others v. Romania (no. 2),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on 9 February 2017;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the complaints concerning Article 8 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged failure by the domestic courts to protect the applicants’ reputation from attacks in the online media. They complain under Article 8 of the Convention. 2. The applicants are the heads of the College of Veterinary Medicine of Romania (CVM). On 13 March 2013, the online publication Cotidianul.ro published an article by G.M. entitled “Danger to the Lives of Romanians: How the CVM’s Actions May Compromise Public Health.” The article concerned the CVM’s legal challenge on procedural grounds against a directive issued by the head of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority (“NSVFSA”), a directive aimed at increasing the scrutiny over the distribution of veterinary pharmaceuticals. 3. The author of the article argued that the applicants’ actions seemingly prioritised the interests of pharmaceutical companies over public health imperatives and raised concerns that overturning the directive could result in the unregulated circulation of antibiotics and antiparasitic agents, a scenario at odds with prevailing European standards. 4. Additionally, the author ventured into conjectures regarding potential corrupt practices, questioning whether Mr Harbuz and Mr Andronie (the second and third applicants) had been motivated by pecuniary incentives. The author finally mentioned rumours that Mr Daneș (the first applicant) had initially attempted to exert undue influence through bribery, followed by threats of dismissal from office, directed at the head of the NSVFSA in a bid to obstruct the issuance of the disputed directive. 5. The article contained, inter alia, the following passages:
[...] “The heads of the CVM are endangering the health of the population.” [...]
[...] “The leadership of the CVM is endangering the health of Romanians by blocking in court Directive No. 41 from 3 May 2012.” [...]
[...] “[The applicants] serve the huge commercial interests of the producers and distributors of veterinary pharmaceuticals.” [...]
[...] “[The applicants] did not have the mandate of veterinary doctors to challenge in court Directive No. 41/2012.” [...]
[...] “[The applicants] show criminal contempt for the recommendations of the European Commission.” [...]
[...] “Viorel Andronie, Liviu Harbuz, Mihai Daneş and the other members of the organized group at the head of the CVM disregard, with criminal contempt, all the signals, warnings, and recommendations made by the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe and by the European Commission.” [...]
[...] “[Was there] pressure in euros on Andronie and Harbuz?” [...]
[...] “The decision of the CVM leadership might make one believe that there was a very high pressure from the producers and distributors of veterinary drugs, without however making it possible to measure the figure in euros to which this pressure could amount!” [...]
[...] “According to some rumours, Daneș and a few other gurus of the Romanian veterinary medical education have exerted extraordinary pressure on the author and signatory of Directive No. 41/2012, the former president of NSVFSA, Dr. R.R., ranging from large sums of money offered for refraining from issuing the said order to threats of dismissal from office.” [...]
[...] “The gang at the head of the veterinary medical profession puts itself in the service of the producers and distributors of veterinary drugs, with total contempt for the health of consumers in Romania and the rest of the European Union.” [...]
[...] “The irresponsible leadership of the CVM slavishly serves the venal interests of drug producers.” [...]
6. On an unspecified date, the applicants initiated defamation proceedings against G.M. and the publication, arguing, inter alia, that the above phrases were defamatory of them. 7. In a judgment of 17 October 2014, the Bucharest District Court granted the applicants’ action in part, having determined that the article was defamatory. 8. On 10 May 2016 the Bucharest Regional Court overturned the above judgment and dismissed the applicants’ action. In reaching its decision, the court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicants were public figures and the impugned article pertained to their professional activities. Additionally, the court noted that the subject matter of the article was a matter of public interest which had sparked a public debate. Moreover, the defendants were deemed to have acted in good faith as the evidence did not indicate any ulterior motives beyond the intention of contributing to a public debate. Finally, the court concluded that the publication in question did not result in any detriment to the plaintiffs, as it did not impinge upon their honour, dignity, or professional standing.

Outcome for Article 8: violation