Dălban v. Romania | 1999

Reforms to protect free speech after journalist given prison sentence

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Opening words of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - © Photo: Cronica Romascana

Background

Ionel Dălban was a Romanian journalist. He ran a local weekly magazine, Cronica Romaşcană, which he used to publish an article about an alleged fraud carried out by a Senator and a head of a public company. Ionel was convicted of libel, fined and given a prison sentence. Many newspapers described this as an attempt to intimidate the press.

Laws from the communist era continued to restrict freedom of speech after Romania became a democracy.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that Ionel's articles had concerned a matter of public interest, and that the conviction had violated his right to freedom of expression.

Follow-up

Ionel Dălban's triggered reforms to protect free speech in Romania. Prison sentences were abolished as punishments for insult in 2002 and defamation in 2005. Legal defences against defamation suits were also strengthened.

Insult and defamation were eventually completely decriminalised under Romanian law.

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

Nurse compensated after being fired for whistleblowing

Brigitte Heinisch was a geriatric nurse. She claimed that practices in the old people’s home where she worked were putting patients at risk. After she made her allegations public, she was fired. Yet, the German courts found that her dismissal was lawful - so Mrs Heinisch took her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Her case was then re-opened and she won compensation.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Germany

New rules to protect media pluralism after company prevented from broadcasting

Italian television was dominated by a small number of channels, with little diversity of ownership. When Centro Europa 7 tried to set up new channels, they were refused access to a broadcasting frequency. The company complained to the European court that the authorities were maintaining the concentration of media power in Italy. The case led to new rules for protecting media pluralism.