THIRD SECTION

Application no. 66623/12 Barna CSIBI against Romania lodged on 6 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Barna Csibi , is a Romanian and Hungarian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Miercurea - Ciuc .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant lives in Romania in an area where the large majority of the population is of Hungarian origin.

On 17 and 24 January 2011 the applicant, on behalf of the cultural association of which he was a founding member, asked the Miercurea-Ciuc Mayor ’ s Office for an authorisation to organise on 26 January 2011 a literary assembly in order to inform the local public on the literary and publishing activities of the Romanian poet M. E.

By a decision of 24 January 2011, communicated to the applicant, the Miercurea-Ciuc Mayor ’ s Office informed the association that it denied its request on the ground that it would breach Article 9(a) of Law no. 60/1991 on organising public assemblies.

On 26 January 2011 the applicant, acting on his own in the course of an event which he considered a public action, exposed on two banners the barred pictures of the faces of the poet M. E. and of Mr M.D., a Romanian politician. The pictures were accompanied by the text “Say no to hungarophobia ”, as the applicant perceived the poet M.E. as a nationalist and Mr M.D. as acting provocatively against the Hungarian minority in Romania.

By two contravention reports produced on the same date the Harghita Gendarme ’ s Office fined the applicant 1,000 lei (RON) (approximately 250 euros (EUR)) and confiscated his banners on the ground that he had breached the provisions of Article 26(1) and (2) of Law no. 60/1991 by organising an undeclared or forbidden public assembly.

According to the applicant the event and his subsequent encounter with the gendarme officers was filmed by a local television station and was broadcasted on the internet.

The applicant challenged the reports before the domestic courts and requested that the confiscated banners be returned to him. In addition, he argued inter alia that the actions of the Harghita Gendarme ’ s Office breached his rights to peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression. Moreover, he claimed pecuniary damage inter alia for the loss he incurred by purchasing the materials for the banners and non-pecuniary damage for the breach of his aforementioned rights.

On an unspecified date the Harghita County Court, on the ground that it lacked competence ratione materiae , severed the part of the applicant ’ s complaint against the report concerning the fine and referred it to the Miercurea-Ciuc District Court.

By a final judgment of 21 April 2011 the Miercurea-Ciuc District Court allowed the applicant ’ s complaint against the report concerning the fine. It held that the said report had not been validly filled in by the agent drafting it as it was missing the applicant ’ s name.

By a judgment of 20 September 2011 the Harghita County Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’ s action against the reports of 26 January 2011 including his claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It held that as long as he had not been authorised to organise any action the conditions for civil or contractual liability had not been met and therefore there was no evidence that he incurred any damage. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment.

By a final judgment of 5 April 2012 the Târgu-MureÅŸ Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. It held that the applicant did not prove that his rights to peaceful assembly or to freedom of expression had been breached. In addition, the authorities can curtail the said rights in order to protect the rights and freedom of others. Moreover, the applicant did not contest the confiscation measure and did not prove that the two confiscated banners are the same with the goods registered on the invoice he submitted. Lastly, it held that regardless of the quashing of the fine, the Mayor ’ s Office decision to deny the request for an assembly had not been quashed by the domestic courts and no such authorisation had been issued on the applicant ’ s name as a private person.    

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 9(a) of Law no. 60/1991 on organising public assemblies states that public assemblies which aim at disseminating totalitarian ideas of a fascist, communist, racist and chauvinistic nature or of any terrorist ‑ diversionist organisation , defamation of the country and of the nation, the instigation to national and religious hatred, to discrimination, public violence and obscene behaviour against public morals are prohibited.

COMPLAINT S

Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention the applicant complains that the sanctions imposed on him by the reports of 26 January 2011 amounted to a breach of his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly.

QUESTION s TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention on account of the sanctions imposed on him on 26 January 2006?

2. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention on account of the sanctions imposed on him on 26 January 2006?