22 Dec Newspaper article on debts owed by ex-tennis did not constitute a violation of the Convention

In the case of Țiriac v. Romania (application no. 51107/16, 30.11.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned an allegedly defamatory press article about applicant, and the court proceedings that followed. The applicant, Ioan Țiriac, is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Monte Carlo (Monaco). He is a former tennis player and president of the Romanian Olympic Committee and is thought to be one of the richest people in Romania. In 2010 a journalist in the national newspaper Financiarul published an article entitled “Fifteen multimillionaires and their debts of a quarter of a billion lei to the State – The recipe for business success is guaranteed when the businesses are funded by public funds or taxes are not paid”. The article concerned the debt owned to the State by the 15 wealthiest people, owners of companies in Romania and the article placed them in a sort of list of “biggest debtors” with their photos (including the applicant), estimated wealth and their debt.

As the article concerned the business activities and practices of some of the wealthiest Romanians and their effect on the system of public tax collection, it is satisfied that it was of public interest. The Court agreed with the domestic courts that the article had not touched on the applicant’s private life, but rather his professional activities, and had not been exclusively about him. The Court noted the national courts’ findings that the article had not been offensive and that the content had been a combination of value judgments and statements of fact which, given the overall content and message of the article, had been factually supported. The Court adjudged that there had not been bad faith on the part of the reporter or any discernible repercussions for the applicant’s life.

In the light of the above the Court considered that the national courts had balanced the competing rights at stake in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law. There had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Reference from the official website of the Court of Human Rights