Published on 17 October 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 57727/21 Oleg BREGA against Romania lodged on 7 October 2021 communicated on 27 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s fining on two occasions on the ground of his loud protest against alleged abuses by the police and of his expressing critical views of the police.

On 2 July 2020 the applicant, who inter alia is a blogger running several popular websites, Youtube and Facebook accounts, was filming a police car parked on a Bucharest street with the flashing lights turned on. He was commenting for his audience, inter alia , that the occupants of the car were not respecting the pandemic rules concerning the wearing of protection masks. When he approached the car, a police officer came out and asked the applicant for his identity papers. In reply the applicant demanded the reason of the identity check and stated that in the absence of a valid reason, the request amounted to an intimidation for his exercising his freedom of expression. A heated debate followed between the applicant and the police officers, during which the officers kept asking for his papers and the applicant kept insisting that they were committing an abuse. The whole scene was being filmed by the applicant until the filming suddenly stopped. Later, when it resumed, the applicant was heard shouting that his rights had been breached and that the police officers had immobilised him to the ground and had searched him. The next day the police officers fined him approximately EUR 120 on account of his breaching the peace by shouting on the street. The applicant challenged the fine in court relying on Article 10 of the Convention, but without success.

On 9 September 2020 the applicant went to a police station on the occasion of the examination of his complaint concerning the alleged abuse of 2 July 2020. In front of the police station he started filming and live broadcasting a police car parked outside the space destined for parking, on one of the lanes for the traffic, against the direction of the traffic, without the flashing lights turned on. He then entered into a debate with a police officer telling him that the wrongly parked police car was endangering the life of others and was setting a bad example. He also said that the local police was doing nothing but intimidating people and the political opposition, that there was no need for such police, that they wasted the taxpayers’ money and that they should not be given arms because they were too nervous and dangerous. The next day the police officer in question fined the applicant approximately EUR 100 on account of his insulting the police. The applicant challenged the fine in court, but without success.

The applicant complains that his fining on the two occasions amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova , nos. 69714/16 and 71685/16, §§ 28-37, 15 January 2019; and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 126, ECHR 2015)?

The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-files in the domestic proceedings.