DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BIANKU

1. I voted for a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in this case. While I join Judge Bratza in his dissenting opinion I would like to add the following.

2. From my reading of the case I think that more attention should be given to the fact that the article written by the applicants mentioned especially that the events were reported to, among others, the city officials.

3. I do understand the concerns of the majority of the Chamber in relation to the responsibility of the media in reporting serious allegations such as the one at issue. But, on the other hand, I do consider that as such, the reporting of an allegation for rape to the local authorities was a matter of fact in this case. Their inaction as well was a matter of fact. I do consider that the reaction – especially inaction - of public authorities in cases of allegations of rape is of public interest and even concern, which leads also to a positive obligation of the authorities to intervene ( s ee X and Y v. Netherlands , no. 9878/80, 26 M arch 1985, in Reports 1985, § 23 and MC v. Bulgaria (Application no. 39272/98) 4 December 2003 in Reports 2003-XII, §§ 150-153 ) . It is true that the presumed victim in this case was an adult, contrary to the cases to which I refer above. Nevertheless, to my mind, the reaction of local authorities over allegations of rape remains a question of public concern.

4. Under this perspective, in addition to the arguments put forward by Judge Bratza in his dissenting opinion, I consider that the criminal conviction of the applicants and the heavy damages they were ordered to pay in this case were not proportionate under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.