CEDO-update-Sabou and Pîrcălab v. Romania (no. 46572/99)

Comunicat de presa al grefei(traduc doar header-ul)
........
Curtea va notifica de asemenea,in scris 16 hotariri ale Camerelor marti 28 Septembri 2004....

Comunicatele de presa si textul hotaririlor vor fi disponibile incepind cu ora 2.30 p.m. (timp local) pe site-ul Internet al Curtii.



Marti 28 Septembrie 2004




....Chamber...


Sabou and Pîrcălab v. Romania (no. 46572/99)

The applicants, Dan Corneliu Sabou and Călin Dan Pîrcălab, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1971 in 1968 and live at Baia Mare (Romania). They are reporters on a local newspaper “Ziua de Nord-Vest”. They were convicted of criminal defamation for publishing a series of five articles on the allegedly unlawful acquisition of land by the mother of the President of Baia Mare District Court.

The applicants argue that their convictions violate their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. Mr Sabou also alleges that a ban that has been imposed on the exercise of his parental rights infringes his right to respect for his family life, in breach of Article 8. He further complains under Article 13 of a lack of an effective remedy enabling him to assert his right to respect for his family life.

si in franceza:

Sabou et Pîrcalab c. Roumanie (no 46572/99)

Les requérants, Dan Corneliu Sabou et Calin Dan Pîrcalab, sont des ressortissants roumains nés respectivement en 1971 et 1968 et résidant à Baia Mare (Roumanie). Ils sont journalistes au quotidien local „Ziua de Nord-Vest”. Ils furent poursuivis et condamnés pénalement pour diffamation, en raison de la publication d’une série de cinq articles portant sur l’acquisition soit disant abusive de terrains, par la mère de la présidente du tribunal de première instance de Baia Mare.



Les requérants soutiennent que leur condamnation a emporté violation de leur droit à la liberté d’_expression, garanti par l’article 10 de la Convention. M. Sabou allègue également que l’interdiction de ses droits parentaux a porté atteinte au droit au respect de sa vie familiale, en violation de l’article 8. En outre, il se plaint de n’avoir pas disposé d’un recours effectif lui permettant de dénoncer la violation alléguée de son droit au respect de sa vie familiale, au mépris de l’article 13 de la Convention.