5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the teaching staff, as associate professor (“conferenţiar universitar”), of the University of Agronomical Sciences and Veterinary Medicine (hereafter “the University”), which is a State university. 7.  Between 2002 and 2005 the applicant submitted many requests to the education authorities of the University and the Ministry of Education for the creation of a position of full professor in his department. He claimed that he met all the required professional criteria for occupying such a position. On 23 March 2005 the rector informed the applicant that for financial and other objective reasons, a new professor position could not be created. 8.  The applicant was also a member of a non-profit organisation called the European Association of University Teaching Staff in Romania (“the Association”). Its general aim was to stop the degradation of education and research standards by making known the abuses, unlawful acts and corruption in education. 9.  On 8 March 2005, a journalist, S.A., had an article published in the newspaper România liberă entitled “Corruption at university level”. The article stated that intellectual theft and plagiarism had been noted at the University of Agronomical Sciences and Veterinary Medicine. The journalist stated in this connection that O.A.A. had published a book, which was mostly (80%) a copy of another book. She nonetheless enjoyed the status of university lecturer under the protection of the deputy rector, Professor N.C.I., who was also the scientific referent of the book. 10.  On 7 June 2005 S.A. had another article published in the same newspaper, entitled “University lecturer ostracised because he denounced university corruption”. The article referred to the applicant, who, having noted that his disclosure about O.A.A.’s plagiarism to the dean and the rector of the University had not been followed up by any measures, had informed the press. Instead of benefiting from the protection provided by Law no. 571/2004 for employees who revealed infringements of the law within public authorities and institutions, the applicant had been invited to a meeting organised by the rector on 14 March 2005 and asked why he had informed the press. On 19 April 2005 another meeting was organised by the deputy rector and the dean of the applicant’s faculty. On the pretext of redistribution of the faculty’s space, they cleared the laboratory used by the applicant for research and practical activities with his students. 11.  On 3 August 2005 the Association organised a press conference the main topic of which was corruption at university level. Seven cases of alleged corruption were presented. While other members of the Association referred to the corruption existent in other universities, the applicant, in his capacity as secretary-general of the Association, delivered a speech about corruption in his own university. He referred to the cases of O.A.A., a colleague, and of the deputy rector, N.C.I. The former had published a book called The Chemistry of Wine that according to him was mostly (80%) a copy of another book, Oenology, published in 1994 by another author. The applicant also mentioned that the book had been written under the direct supervision and guidance of N.C.I, who had written a eulogistic foreword to the book. 12.  The applicant criticised the way in which N.C.I. had managed the AGRAL programme concerning public funding of scientific research stations; he alleged that N.C.I. had offered funding only to stations from which he could make personal gains. 13.  The applicant also stated that N.C.I. was benefiting from a preferential regime because of his past as former secretary of the Romanian Communist Party. According to the applicant, N.C.I. was occupying too many positions to be able to handle them properly: professor at several different universities; deputy rector of the University of Agronomical Sciences and Veterinary Medicine; president of the National Office of Wine and Vineyards; and director of the AGRAL programme for public funding of research stations. He was also the head of the Department of Viticulture and Oenology. 14.  The applicant also stated that N.C.I. was involved in sabotaging scientific research and that in the department of Viticulture and Oenology led by N.C.I. there was a mafia-type organisation (“încregătură de tip mafiot”). 15.  Most of those statements were repeated in an article entitled “Professor at Piteşti University accused of corruption” published in the weekly newspaper Impact în Argeş of 26-30 September 2005. 16.  On 10 November 2005 N.C.I. lodged a joint criminal and civil complaint against the applicant for defamation. He claimed that the newspaper Impact în Argeş had published an article containing the applicant’s views expressed at a press conference on 3 August 2005. 17.  The applicant adduced extensive documentary evidence before the Bucharest District Court. He submitted certificates from different universities at which N.C.I. had taught, the statute of the Association, different documents concerning the AGRAL programme, including the composition of the management of the programme, and a few letters issued by the Odobeşti research station at which O.A.A had performed research activity. He also submitted several newspaper articles containing criticism of N.C.I. and O.A.A. 18.  N.C.I. gave a statement before the court on 13 February 2006. He acknowledged that he was cumulatively occupying the positions of deputy rector of the University, president of the National Office of Wine and Vineyards and director of the AGRAL programme for public funding of research stations. He also stated that even before the press conference the applicant had made defamatory statements about him in letters addressed to the rector of the University, the dean of the Faculty of Oenology and the Ministry of Education. 19.  On 13 March 2006 the court heard as a witness on behalf of the applicant S.A., one of the journalists who had written articles about the alleged corruption in the University (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above). He stated that he had attended the press conference of 3 August 2005. As regards the applicant’s allegation that N.C.I. was responsible for the incorrect manner in which public money had been allocated for scientific research, the journalist pointed out that on the basis of the documents he had seen on that occasion, such as salary slips and reports, it was clear to him that discriminatory treatment had been applied to the researchers working for the research stations and the University. The very high payments received by certain members of the University staff had convinced the applicant that only research stations which had accepted the teaching staff agreed by the plaintiff obtained public funding. The journalist also referred to the fact that the plaintiff was occupying several teaching positions at different universities. Lastly, the journalist stated that he had based his articles about the University not only on the material presented by the Association but also on documents from other sources, which he could not reveal. 20.  By a judgment of 17 April 2006, the Bucharest District Court dismissed the criminal complaint. It held that even though the applicant could not prove the veracity of his statements, one element of the crime of defamation was missing, namely an intent to damage the reputation of N.C.I. It also held that the applicant, convinced by the accuracy of his statements, had only intended to present a case of corruption at university level. The most relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“In the instant case, the defendant did not prove the accuracy of his statements despite the fact that on 13 February 2006 the court (taking into account that the morality and legality of the education system at university level is obviously a topic of public interest, and the interest of informing the public opinion and the authorities is serious and legitimate in accordance with Article 207 of the Criminal Code and the Court’s case-law – the case of Castells v. Spain[1] and the case of Colombani v. France[2]) had admitted all the evidence proposed on his behalf.
...
Moreover, the documents submitted by the defendant (namely, the foreword of the book signed by the injured party (N.C.I.), copies of the book covers of The Chemistry of Wine and of the original Oenology, chapters from the two books) do not prove that the injured party encouraged plagiarism.
Some resemblance in the form and contents of the two works that could be noted by reading in parallel certain chapters cannot lead to the conclusion that the injured party was liable for not denouncing plagiarism. Such a conclusion would mean that the injured party knew perfectly well the previously published book and that he had made a comparative analysis of both works, noting some inconsistencies which he ignored ...
However, the role of that foreword (and of any foreword in general) is to express a point of view about a work ... and does not represent an objective and critical opinion.”
...
“Moreover, the defendant did not prove that the injured party had blackmailed the research stations ...
The documents submitted by the defendant (copies of the pay slips of March 2005 issued by the Odobeşti research station, the records of the salaries paid by the same research station to several collaborators, and the report of an assessment performed at the research station by an authority of the Agriculture Minister on 20 July 2005) could not lead to the conclusion that the injured party had blackmailed the Odobeşti research station”.
...
“In addition, the defendant’s allegations that the injured party obtained undeserved profit by unlawfully occupying several positions have not been proved to be true, as the injured party acknowledged that he had several sources of income by lawfully occupying several public offices.
As regards the defendant’s allegation about the sabotaging by the injured party of scientific research by damaging different types of hybrids and then selling the greenhouse in which the defendant carried out research was not proved by the adduced evidence.
The minute (“proces-verbal”) signed by the Faculty of Horticulture and a private company proved that the latter rented a building and the adjacent greenhouse, in which no plants were cultivated; moreover the minute was not signed by the injured party.
Under these circumstances, after the examination of all evidence, it cannot be concluded that the defendant has proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the aspects stated by him are true.” 21.  As regards the applicant’s intent to commit defamation, the first‑instance court stated the following:
“The court notes that the defendant’s statements were made in the context of a press conference organised by the European Association of University Teaching Staff (of which the defendant is secretary-general), the main topic of which was the corruption and unlawful acts committed at university level, it being well known that the main object of the Association is the monitoring and disclosure of irregularities in the academic system.
Even though the defendant’s speech was shocking and exaggerated, it should be regarded as part of a topic of public interest – namely, corruption among university teaching staff – and the legislative and moral reform of the teaching system, an objective desired by the whole of society.
It should be noted that before the press conference of 3 August 2005, the newspaper România Liberă had published an article concerning the plagiarism of The Chemistry of Wine, and the Association had drafted a report concerning the situation of teaching in Romania. The report denounced the fact that university teachers were simultaneously teaching at several universities (“cu normă întreagă”) and that teachers, guilty of plagiarism and scientific fraud, were maintained in their positions at universities (a report that should have been known by the defendant in his capacity as secretary-general of the Association). These aspects prove that the topic had been previously published and debated in a public context.
At the same time, another important aspect is the fact that at the conference the defendant submitted several documents, such as: time sheets (“fişe de pontaj”), reports, the foreword written by the injured party for The Chemistry of Wine and copies of the alleged plagiarised book ..., documents which the defendant considered as evidence of the alleged acts.
Notwithstanding that these documents did not directly prove that the injured party had committed the acts of which he had been accused, they formed the basis of the defendant’s intimate conviction that the former was guilty of committing certain irregularities.
In this context, even though it is obvious that the honour and reputation of the injured party were objectively harmed, the court considers that this situation was the result of the speech and not an aim in itself, since the speaker had expressed his viewpoint in his capacity as a member of the Association and not as a private person, with the intention of contributing to informing on a topic of extreme public interest, that of corruption at university level, which had already been known by the press.
Consequently, the court considers that the defendant did not act with intent to gratuitously harm the injured party’s reputation, but with the conviction that he was revealing a corruption case.” 22.  The court partially allowed the civil complaint, ordering the applicant to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounting to 3,000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 860 euros (EUR)). It held that under the applicable civil law the applicant could be held liable for even the slightest level of fault. Therefore, the applicant was ordered to pay compensation to N.C.I. for the way he had brought to the attention of journalists the information regarding his professional activity.
The relevant passages of the decision read as follows:
“The way in which the defendant brought this information to the journalists’ attention, without clear evidence, convinced them that the presented facts were plausible (see in this respect the statements of witness S.A., as well as the articles published in the daily newspapers Impact de Iaşi and Fortune).
Consequently, the presentation of superficial information, with a high degree of suggestibility, constitutes an illicit act.
...
As regards the defendant’s liability, it must be emphasised that the court’s finding concerning the defendant’s good faith has relevance only in connection with the criminal complaint, given the fact that in order to establish civil liability it is enough for the court to find the slightest level of fault.
It is true that according to the ECHR’s case-law, persons acting as whistleblowers can share information concerning topics of public interest, even if shocking and disturbing; however, they should also take into account the protection of the reputation of others, as provided for by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999‑I).” 23.  Appeals on points of law lodged by the parties were allowed. By a decision delivered on 11 November 2006 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the criminal complaint, as a direct consequence of an amendment made to the Criminal Code regarding the decriminalisation of defamation. The civil complaint was left unresolved. 24.  On 13 December 2006 Professor N.C.I., brought a separate civil action for compensation against the applicant before the Bucharest Civil Court of First Instance. He claimed that certain remarks made by the applicant on 3 August 2005 and other occasions had constituted an attack on his reputation. 25.  The applicant produced extensive testimonial and documentary evidence before the court in order to demonstrate the accuracy of his statements. He adduced copies of the books The Chemistry of Wine and Oenology, and underlined the paragraphs he said had been copied by O.A.A. He also proposed that the court hear statements from individuals working for a certain research station in order to prove that the author of the book The Chemistry of Wine, a “protégée” of N.C.I., was registered as an employee and received a salary from the Odobeşti research station, which benefited from funding granted by N.C.I., without ever turning up to work there. He tried to prove that despite the fact that under the applicable law, a professor does not have the right to teach at more than two universities, N.C.I was a professor at at least three universities. 26.  On 2 April 2007 the Bucharest Civil Court of First Instance allowed the action and the sum of RON 20,000 was awarded to N.C.I as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It held that the applicant was liable for the way in which he had presented the above information concerning N.C.I. to journalists, who were convinced of the accuracy of his information and had published it in newspapers. The court endorsed the reasoning of the Bucharest District Court in its judgment of 17 April 2006 by copying most of the paragraphs from the latter judgment. Thus, it held among other things, that the applicant had not proved that N.C.I. had encouraged plagiarism by writing the foreword for the book The Chemistry of Wine as the role of any foreword is to express a point of view about a work and not to represent a critical opinion. The court also held that the applicant had not proved that N.C.I. had obtained undeserved profit by unlawfully occupying several positions.
The applicant was also ordered to pay N.C.I.’s legal expenses. 27.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment. He claimed that he had submitted enough evidence to prove the accuracy of his statements about N.C.I. He pointed out that the court had turned his statement that “in the department of oenology there is a mafia‑type organisation (“încregătură de tip mafiot”) into the statement that N.C.I. “is involved in a mafia-type organisation”. On 30 October 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the first‑instance court. The applicant was ordered to pay the N.C.I.’s legal expenses. 28.  On 20 March 2008 the University issued a decision by which it ordered the seizure of one third of the applicant’s monthly salary up to RON 27,877 (approximately EUR 7,470), representing compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the legal expenses awarded to N.C.I. by the domestic courts. 29.  On an unspecified date the Association lodged a criminal complaint against O.A.A. accusing her of plagiarism. On 20 March 2007 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court decided not to institute criminal proceedings against O.A.A. on the grounds that the complaint had not been lodged by the aggrieved party. It noted, however, that a significant part of the two books, The Chemistry of Wine and Oenology, was similar. 30.  On 6 May 2009 the Association together with the author of the book Oenology lodged another criminal complaint against O.A.A. They also accused N.C.I. of being an accomplice to O.A.A.’s plagiarism in his capacity as scientific coordinator of the book. On 17 November 2010 the prosecutor’s office attached to Bucharest County Court discontinued the investigation on the grounds that the statutory time-limit for prosecuting the offence of plagiarism had expired. 31.  On 3 October 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint against the University’s decision to decrease his salary of April and May 2006 on account of his unjustified absence from work. He claimed that the measure was illegal as timesheets for registering presence at work had not been introduced at the University until June 2006. Moreover, he adduced evidence according to which he had been at work on the days in question. Among other aspects, he pointed out that the actual reason for sanctioning him was his conflict with the management of the University because he had made public that the deputy rector had encouraged plagiarism. 32.  By a decision of 26 March 2007 the Bucharest County Court – Department of Labour Litigation – allowed the applicant’s complaint and ordered the University to pay him the amounts withdrawn from his salaries of April and May 2006. The court held that under Article 287 of the Labour Code the burden of proof lay with the applicant’s employer but that it had been unable to produce any legal documents which could prove the applicant’s unjustified absence from work. 33.  On 19 June 2006 the University issued a decision by which it applied a disciplinary sanction to the applicant consisting in the suspension, for a period of two years, of his right to apply for a higher teaching position, to obtain a teaching degree or take up a management position. The reasons for the sanction were the following: (i) unjustified absences from several classes and teaching activities; (ii) non-compliance with the teaching curriculum; and (iii) contempt and ignorance of the decisions taken by the management of the faculty and of the department concerning the clearance of a space assigned for setting up a research laboratory. 34.  The applicant challenged the decision before the Bucharest County Court. 35.  On 25 May 2007 the county court noted that the applicant’s action remained without object as the University had decided to revoke its decision of 19 June 2006.