003-6822862-9130706

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 287 (2020)   13.10.2020   The withdrawal of a journalist’s accreditation to consult the Securitate archives   did not breach the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Gafiuc v. Romania (application no. 59174/13) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the withdrawal of the accreditation granted to a journalist to study the archives   of the Securitate in order to conduct research into sports activities under the communist regime. In   June and July 2009 the journalist published several articles in which he disclosed information about   certain well-known sports figures.   The Court noted that the obligation on the applicant to protect the personal data held by the public   authorities had been foreseeable, and that the withdrawal of accreditation in the event of failure to   comply with the strictly scientific use of the documents had been provided for in the regulations of   the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (CNSAS).   The Court reiterated that the freedom of expression secured by Article 10 was not unlimited. It could   be restricted in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others.   Thus, the Court considered it reasonable and legitimate for the CNSAS to have ruled that the   applicant’s failure to comply with his legal obligations had irremediably compromised the   relationship of trust that ought to exist between that institution and the persons who were granted   authorisation to consult its files. In the Court’s view, the withdrawal of accreditation had not been   disproportionate.   Principal facts   The applicant, Justin Paul Gafiuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in   Bucharest. At the relevant time, Mr Gafiuc was a sports journalist with the newspaper Gazeta   Sporturilor. The case concerns the withdrawal of the accreditation granted to him to study the   archives of the Securitate in order to conduct research into sports activities under the communist   regime.   In 2005 the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (“the CNSAS”) authorised Mr Gafiuc   to access its archives as a researcher for the purpose of studying sport in Romania during the   communist era. In June and July 2009 Mr Gafiuc published six articles, in which he disclosed   information about certain well-known sports figures.   On 21 July 2009 the management board of the CNSAS withdrew the applicant’s accreditation, on the   grounds that in some of the articles Mr Gafiuc had failed to comply with the legal obligation to   protect the private and family life of the persons referred to in Securitate documents. Mr Gafiuc   requested the board to reconsider its decision, without success.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   On 5 October 2009 Mr Gafiuc brought an administrative action in the Court of Appeal against the   CNSAS’s decision. The court dismissed the application as being unfounded and held that Mr Gafiuc   had failed to comply with his obligations under Article 28 § 3 of Government Emergency Ordinance   no. 24/2008 on citizens’ access to their personal files and the disclosure (deconspirarea) of   Securitate documents, and under Rule 39 §§ 1, 2, 5 and 7 of the CNSAS Rules. Mr Gafiuc appealed   against that judgment.   In a final judgment of 14 March 2013 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It confirmed   that the summary records contested by Mr Gafiuc constituted administrative acts, that Mr Gafiuc   had not duly protected the private and family life of the persons referred to in the Securitate files   and that the decision to withdraw his accreditation had a legal basis in the general provisions of Law   no. 677/2001.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Gafiuc alleged that the withdrawal of the   accreditation enabling him to access the CNSAS archives had constituted an infringement of his   Convention rights.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 September 2013.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), President,   Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),   Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Romania),   Branko Lubarda (Serbia),   Carlo Ranzoni (Liechtenstein),   Georges Ravarani (Luxembourg),   Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that it was clear from the CNSAS’s summary record of 21 July 2009 and the Court of   Appeal’s judgment of 20 September 2011 that the decision to withdraw the accreditation had been   based on Article 28 §§ 1 and 3 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 24/2008 and on Rule   §§ 1, 2, 5 and 7 of the CNSAS Rules. Both the management board of the CNSAS and the High   Court had also pointed out that the applicant had breached the provisions of General Law   no. 667/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. The   Court noted that the provisions in the Government Emergency Ordinance and the CNSAS Rules   imposed an obligation on individuals who were granted authorisation to access the Securitate   archives to protect the private and family life of persons who had been persecuted by the State   security bodies, in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 667/2001. The CNSAS regulations also   provided for the withdrawal of accreditation from persons who used the documents made available   to them for purposes that were not strictly scientific. Law no. 667/2001 ensured general protection   of all the personal data held by the State authorities.   The Court saw no reason to call into question the findings of the domestic courts. In addition, it   noted that section 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of Law no. 677/2001 indicated that personal data could only be   processed with the express and unambiguous consent of the person concerned.   In consequence, the Court considered that the obligation on the applicant to ensure protection of   the personal data held by the public authorities had been foreseeable and that the withdrawal of   accreditation in the event of failure to comply with the instruction on strictly scientific use had been   provided for in the CNSAS Rules.   The Court concluded that the interference had been “prescribed by law”.   With regard to the aim of the interference, the Court noted that the applicant in the present case   had requested access to the Securitate archives in order to gather information for the purpose of   historical research. The documents studied contained information about individuals who had been   placed under surveillance by the political police or who had collaborated with it. The Court   considered it reasonable for a public authority with responsibility for managing files containing   information about private individuals to provide guarantees in its regulations, in order to protect the   fundamental rights of those individuals. Furthermore, Law no. 677/2001 protected individuals with   regard to the processing and free movement of personal data.   Accordingly, in view of the legal obligation on all public authorities to protect the personal data held   by them, the Court considered that the Government were entitled to invoke the legitimate aim of   the protection of the rights of others, although the persons concerned had not themselves lodged   complaints.   With regard to the necessity of the interference, the Court noted that the applicant had disclosed in   press articles material about individuals who had collaborated with the political police by providing   information about various sports figures. The material disclosed to the public described actions   relating to the private sphere or the moral integrity of those persons. Moreover, the applicant had   named the individuals in question. The information did not relate to athletic performance, had not   been made public by the persons concerned, and was not otherwise accessible to the public, who   had no means of verifying its accuracy. Those persons were entitled to expect, both from the   authorities and from the applicant who had been granted access to the information, protection of   their right to respect for their private life.   The Court reiterated that the freedom of expression secured by Article 10 was not unlimited. It could   be restricted in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others.   In the present case, the applicant had chosen not to carry out an academic study of the information   obtained from the Securitate archives, but to disclose it in “raw” form, without assessing its   relevance in the light of the declared aim of his research: sport in Romania under the communist   regime. Rather than filtering this information, he had revealed to the public aspects of the private   life of sports figures, information that could in no way contribute to a debate of public interest.   The applicant had been able to apply to the national courts to challenge the withdrawal of his   accreditation. Those courts had found that he had breached his obligation to protect the private life   of the persons persecuted by the Securitate and that he had departed from the aim of the research   for which accreditation had been granted. The consequence of the applicant’s failure to comply with   his legal obligations had been the withdrawal of his accreditation. The Court noted, however, that   this had not prevented him from continuing to work as a journalist.   Thus, the Court considered it reasonable and legitimate for the CNSAS to have ruled that the   applicant’s failure to comply with his legal obligations had irremediably compromised the   relationship of trust that ought to exist between that institution and the persons who were granted   authorisation to consult its files. In the Court’s view, the withdrawal of accreditation had not been   disproportionate.   The Court considered that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had   been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that the authorities had struck a fair balance   between the competing interests, thus acting within their margin of appreciation.   It followed that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4