5.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and live in Oradea. 6.  The first applicant is a journalist, and at the time of the publication of the article which forms the object of the current application he was the editor in chief of the local newspaper Afaceri bihorene and was married to the second applicant. 7.  On 29 May 2002 another local newspaper, Bihoreanul, published on the front page and on several other pages an article entitled ‘Sex scandal involving VIPs’ son’ (Scandal sexual cu fiu de VIP-uri). The article referred to an extramarital relationship being conducted by the first applicant with a woman, D.M. The author, G.L., wrote that D.M. wanted to put an end to the relationship but that the applicants were harassing her. Details were given about an incident allegedly set up by the applicants to get the wife of C.I., the son of a football club director (the alleged VIP), to catch him cheating on her with D.M. Large photographs of the applicants and of D.M., as well as of all the other people mentioned in the article, were posted on each of the five pages of the article. 8.  The article contained banner headlines such as: ‘A scandal never seen in Oradea! Because of the obsession with his lover developed by a well-known journalist from Oradea, C.I., the son of the technical director of the national football team, has now got to explain himself to his wife’ and ‘A marriage which started off on the right foot was placed in jeopardy by a rather bothered journalist’ posted under a photograph of the applicant. Another headline, which filled a whole page, read: ‘The son of E.I. fell victim to a flagrant set-up by a journalist obsessed with his former lover’. Under a photograph of the applicants was the caption: ‘The Someşans. She the cock, he the hen, together two eagles’. 9. Under the title ‘D.[M.] on Claudiu [the first applicant]’ the following remarks were made about the applicant:
“D. [M.] says about Claudiu that he is a weak person who doesn’t know what he wants. Because on the one hand he wants to escape from a failed marriage, and on the other, he stays stuck in it.” 10.  The article also included several statements from D.M. in quotes, the relevant parts reading as follows:
“I told him not to get a divorce for my sake, but only to divorce if this is what he feels is right. So many terrible things have happened in his house. In the Someşan family, Gina [the second applicant] is the boss. Claudiu came to me several times with his back covered with bruises and scratches He told me that she beats him every time she gets angry. And she is the one he stayed with! And when I think that Gina called me once ... to tell me to go back to Claudiu, because he is suffering, and she does not want him to be in this state because of me. She said she did not want someone else’s leavings. I see that she has changed her mind now ... I fell in love with him. Maybe because I felt he was a captive in an unhappy marriage.” 11.  Under the title ‘Treatment for venereal diseases’ the article contained statements allegedly given by the first applicant but without quotes, as follows:
“Claudiu claims that as a result of the sexual relationship he had with his former lover, D.[M.] he caught a venereal disease which he transmitted to his wife, and he had to pay ten million lei for treatment.” 12.  Under the title ‘Businessmen from Bihor...’ (Afacerişti bihoreni) it was mentioned:
“Ex-reporter at Morning Journal until it was closed in 1994, Claudiu Someşan worked for a while at TVS. Accused of unfair competitive practices, because he produced his own advertising, he went back to his old editorial office. In 1999 he set up ... Afaceri Bihorene. The newspaper, whose editorial director he is, contains exclusively economic news and advertising articles, the type Someşan specialised in before ...” 13.  The applicants lodged a criminal complaint against both D.M. and the journalist G.L. for slander and defamation under Articles 205 and 206 of the Criminal Code. The applicants claimed that the article was published by a competitor publication in order to destroy the first applicant’s image and reputation and the reputation of his newspaper. They requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 500,000,000 Romanian lei. 14.  On 12 May 2003 the Oradea District Court rejected the applicants’ complaint and their claim for damages. The court held that the journalist’s statement indicated that she had not intended to insult or defame the applicant, and had published only matters she had previously verified as fact in discussions with the applicant Claudiu Someşan, as well as with D.M. With respect to D.M., the court quoted relevant parts of her statement, from which it appeared that the journalist had contacted her to verify information allegedly obtained from Claudiu Someşan, and that everything she had told the journalist was true. 15.  The applicants appealed against this decision before the Bihor County Court, and on 2 June 2004 their appeal was rejected and the judgment of the Oradea District Court was upheld. Judge M.A.C. joined a separate dissenting opinion to the judgment on the appeal, stating that the first-instance court had wrongly evaluated the evidence, and that the material published revealed the journalist’s intention to affect the reputation of the applicants, since the article did not make any positive contribution to society. The judge noted:
“ ... the explicit scope of the article in question does not contribute to debate on a matter of public interest, but contains assertions concerning the private and family life of some individuals; this is targeting private individuals who do not hold public office, thereby overstepping the limit of tolerance allowed for politicians or those in public life ...” 16.  On an unknown date after the publication of the article the applicants divorced.