Communicated on 10 July 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 13091/17 and 13277/17 Nechita -Adrian OROS against Romania and Ion- Alin BÃŽRÅ¢OIU against Romania lodged on 9 February 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the dismissal by a final judgment of 10 May 2016 (notified to the applicants on 12 August 2016), delivered by the Bucharest County Court, of a general tort law action brought by the applicants against a journalist and the company owning the online page of a national newspaper ( www.Cotidianul.ro ) for publishing on 13 March 2013 under the title “ Danger for the life of Romanian – The managers of the Veterinary College of Physicians put at risk the health of the population. ” an allegedly defamatory article concerning the applicants. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicants, who are members of the managerial team of the Veterinary College of Physicians, complained that the proceeding before the final-instance court were unfair because the court failed to provide reasons for dismissing the arguments raised by them in support of their application. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complained about a breach of their right to honour and reputation because the final-instance failed to protect their aforementioned rights, dismissed their application without examining their arguments, and they were unable to obtain compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by them .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the examination of their cases? In particular, did the final-instance court provide reasons for dismissing the arguments raised by the applicants in support of their applications?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention having regard to the content of the article in question (see Petrie c. Italy , no. 25322/12, § 39, 18 May 2017, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012, and Pfeifer c. Austria , no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007)?

3. If so, was that interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic judicial authorities adequately put in balance, in the light of the criteria established in the Court ’ s case-law, the applicants ’ right for respect for private life and the defendants ’ right to freedom of expression (see Petrie, cited above, § 40, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108- 13, ECHR 2012, and Axel Springer AG , cited above, §§ 89-95)?