03 Jan Press article criticising the marketing of antibiotics considered harmful to human health did not violate the Convention

In the case of Daneş and Others v. Romania (applications nos. 44332/16, 44829/16, 44839/16, 07.12.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the dismissal of civil claims brought by the applicants, members of the management board of the National Order of Veterinary Surgeons of Romania (C.M.V.R.), against a journalist and a local weekly newspaper, with a view to securing protection of their reputation following the publication of an article containing criticisms of them.

The Court noted that the aim of the disputed article was to set out the danger posed to consumer health by the marketing and use of non-prescription veterinary medicines, the steps taken by the applicants to have set aside a decree intended to strengthen the effectiveness of the relevant standards, and the applicants’ direct involvement in the marketing of veterinary medicines. It also noted that the sale of meat unfit for consumption was already a matter of media coverage when the article was published and had been discussed in the national press. 

The Court also noted, like the national courts, that the author of the article had acted in good faith, by basing his article on other publications discussing the same subject and using the collected information to reach value judgments. His statements had been corroborated by evidence from a veterinary surgeon who, like the journalist, wished to sound the alarm about the unrestricted marketing of veterinary medicines. In addition, the fact that the author of the article had moderated his statements, accompanied his allegations with justifying documents and was participating in a debate that was already underway were factors indicating his good faith.

It considered that the subjects touched on in the article were questions of general interest, linked to the protection of public health. It reiterated that, pursuant to the authorities’ positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, the public had to have access to information enabling them to assess the risks to which they were exposed.

The Court therefore saw no reason to doubt that the publication of the disputed article could be understood as having contributed to the coverage of a subject of public interest. In consequence, it considered that national courts had struck a fair balance between the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and the right of the article’s author to freedom of expression, and had assessed these competing interests in the light of the criteria set out in its case-law. Thus, there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Reference from the website of the European Court of Human Rights