Published on 18 July 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 26768/21 Ion PÄ‚CALÄ‚ against Romania lodged on 13 May 2021 communicated on 1 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application originated in an administrative fine imposed on the applicant on 15 April 2019 because he shouted the words “Offender, you have gotten away once more.” while he was protesting publicly together with a few hundred other people against the actions of the governing party and of its president, Mr L.D. who was at the same time president of the lower house of the Parliament. The protest was taking place outside a courthouse while a court was hearing one of the criminal cases opened by the authorities against Mr L.D. and the applicant shouted the words in question after Mr L.D. had left the courthouse and had approached the protesters. By a final judgment of 13 November 2020 the Bucharest County Court examined the applicant’s challenge against the fine and decided to replace the fine by a warning. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the applicant’s arguments to the effect that in the circumstances of his case any penalty imposed on him violated his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly. The court held that the applicant’s statement was offensive and violated the applicant’s lawful duty of respecting another person’s right to reputation and personal image. The applicant alleged, either expressly or in substance, that the judgment of the Bucharest County Court had violated his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly provided for by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention because he had made the statement in question while protesting publicly against Mr L.D.’s and his party’s allegedly unlawful political conduct and actions and after Mr L.D. had already been convicted of an offence by a final court judgment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 and/or Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?