Context of the Dispute and Procedural Framework
The dispute analyzed involved a request for a summary judgment by which a legal entity asked the court to issue provisional measures consisting of the temporary removal from the online environment of certain social media posts and press articles that were considered defamatory, until final resolution of civil actions and ongoing criminal proceedings.
The request was made in the context of a violent incident that occurred in a public space, which generated significant media interest. The event was widely reported both on social media and by local and national press. The published materials included video footage of the event accompanied by journalistic accounts and commentary about the conduct of security agents involved.
At first instance, the request for the summary judgment was denied, and this decision was upheld on appeal, with the court confirming that the legal conditions required for this exceptional remedy were not met.
Factual Background as Found by the Court
The Incident That Triggered the Conflict
Evidence presented showed that on a particular day, near a sports arena, a serious incident occurred involving security guards, gendarmes, and several civilians. The incident was captured on video recordings, which were subsequently shared on social media and picked up by press publications.
The consequences of the event were grave, with one of the individuals involved being hospitalized in critical condition. This resulted in a broad public reaction and legitimate media interest.
The Online Materials Challenged
The applicant challenged:
- posts made on social media platforms containing accusatory commentary;
- press articles published on an online site that described the incident, using language perceived as excessive and defamatory, and allegedly implying certain criminal guilt.
It was argued that these materials severely affected the applicant’s right to image, professional reputation, dignity, and economic activity, even generating hostile reactions and threats against its representatives.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Article 997 of the Civil Procedure Code – Summary Judgment
“The court may order interim measures in urgent cases, for the preservation of a right that would be prejudiced by delay, for the prevention of imminent harm that could not be repaired, and for the removal of obstacles that may arise in the event of execution.”
“A summary judgment cannot prejudice the merits of the right.”
Article 255 of the Civil Code – Protection of Non-Patrimonial Rights
“(1) Every person has the right to respect for their private life.
(3) The injured party may ask the court to order provisional measures if the prejudice is serious and difficult to repair and if the action is not manifestly unfounded.”
Article 257 of the Civil Code – Right to Image
“Every person has the right to their own image. In exercising this right, they may prohibit or prevent the reproduction, in any manner, of their physical appearance or voice.”
Article 75 of the Civil Code – Limits on Freedom of Expression
“Actions that are permitted by law or by international conventions and pacts on human rights to which Romania is a party do not constitute a violation of the rights provided for in this chapter.”
Article 30 of the Constitution of Romania
“Freedom of expression of thoughts, opinions, or beliefs and freedom of creations of any kind, by word of mouth, in writing, through images, sounds, or by any other means of communication to the public are inviolable.”
“Freedom of expression cannot prejudice the dignity, honor, private life of the person, nor the right to one’s own image.”
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
“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.”
Analysis of the Requirements for Summary Judgment
Lack of Proof of Serious and Irreparable Harm
The court found that simply alleging damage to reputation or economic loss was not enough. The applicant failed to provide concrete evidence of:
- loss of contracts;
- reduced revenues;
- actual and quantifiable harm to its economic activities.
The alleged harm was deemed hypothetical, not supported by evidence showing that it was serious and difficult to repair.
Existence of Legitimate Public Interest
The challenged materials addressed a matter of significant public interest, occurring in a public space and involving individuals performing security duties. The court emphasized the role of the press as a watchdog of democratic society, with the right to inform the public about such events.
Apparent Legality of Journalistic Expression
In a preliminary analysis, specific to summary judgment procedures, the court found that:
- the articles were based on real footage;
- the reports had a factual basis;
- although strong in tone, the language used was within the boundaries of freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It could not be concluded that the statements were entirely without factual basis, a necessary condition for issuing provisional measures.
Inability to Assess the Merits via Summary Judgment
The court highlighted that determining whether the published materials were defamatory or a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression requires a complex analysis incompatible with the summary nature of summary judgment procedures.
Granting the request would effectively mean prejudging the merits of the case, which is expressly prohibited.
Lack of Proportionality of the Requested Measure
The temporary removal of articles and posts from the online environment would constitute a significant interference with freedom of expression, without the applicant having demonstrated a sufficiently serious harm that would justify such a restriction.
Conclusions
The court confirmed that a summary judgment is an exceptional remedy, applicable only in clear situations free of factual or legal controversy. When a dispute involves weighing the right to image against freedom of expression, requiring a thorough examination of evidence, the solution cannot be provided through a summary procedure.
The decision reaffirms the stringent standards set by the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression and the limits on judicial intervention in journalistic activity.
In disputes involving freedom of expression, the right to image, and press activity, specialized legal assistance is essential. In this case, a team of attorneys provided defense for the journalist sued, leveraging ECHR standards and national jurisprudence on media freedom.