6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Sinaia. 7.  In February and March 2005 the applicant, a journalist and editorial director of the weekly magazine Ziar de Sinaia, wrote four articles about the director of the town’s public hospital, Dr C.P., complaining about his managerial technique, the alleged intimidation into silence of the hospital’s doctors, the closure of the intensive care department – allegedly because he had harassed the doctor previously in charge of that department – and about his attempts to obtain social housing despite not meeting the requirements. Dr C.P.’s connections to the Social Democratic Party (PSD) were also a point of criticism, as the applicant wrote that politically favoured managers were “moulded from the same dough as Doctor Mengele” (plămada din care era construit şi doctorul Mengele). 8.  Some of the terms employed by the applicant regarding Dr C.P., as noted by the domestic court, read as follows: “an arrogant person, sure of himself, who talks in a low voice with a superior smile”; “prone to intimate behaviour commonly considered strange”; someone who “pretended that he did not know how big his wife’s fortune was”; “who pulled many strings to become director”; who “aspires to the title of the most dreadful social climber in Sinaia” (“aspiră la titlul de cel mai incrâncenat parvenit din Sinaia”); and who “started a campaign of terror against the former director, whom he verbally attacked for two years until he made her resign”. The applicant also accused Dr C.P. of having instituted “a law of silence” by nominating himself as the hospital’s spokesperson. 9.  Dr. C.P. field a criminal complaint against the applicant, accusing him of defamation. 10.  On 31 August 2005 the Sinaia District Court acquitted the applicant and dismissed the civil claims. It found that some of the applicant’s statements were value judgments concerning the plaintiff’s moral and professional standing. As for the statements of fact, the court considered that the applicant had proved their veracity. The court also considered that the applicant’s statements had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the aim pursued. As for the civil action, the court noted that the applicant had not committed an unlawful act capable of triggering his civil liability. It held as follows:
“The court considers that ... the applicant’s deed was not unlawful, as he was merely exercising his freedom of expression, a subjective right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution and one of the fundamental freedoms protected by the European Convention on Human Rights in its Article 10.”
Lastly, the court considered that the applicant had acted with a view to informing the public on matters of public concern and had not had the intention to defame the victim. 11.  On 11 November 2005 the Prahova County Court quashed the District Court’s decision in part. It upheld the applicant’s acquittal but nevertheless ordered him, together with the newspaper, to pay 6,000 Romanian Lei (RON) in damages under Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code. He was also ordered to pay court fees of RON 60 to the State and RON 5,500 to the victim. 12.  The court considered that the terms used by the applicant in his articles had infringed the victim’s honour and reputation, noting that the victim was a public figure and had therefore suffered damage as a result of the articles. It based its decision on the evidence in the file and the oral submissions of counsel. The applicant was only allowed to address the court at the end of the hearing. 13.  The County Court held as follows:
“The first-instance court’s reasoning was correct and adequate in finding that the defendant, through the published articles, exercised his freedom of expression and informed the public on a matter of public concern.
...
However, he is accountable from a civil law point of view...
It is important that journalists act with ... professionalism and [in an] educat[ed] [manner].
Although the issues on which the defendant reported do not amount to an offence and he is thus not criminally responsible for what he wrote, the manner in which he wrote and the terms he employed aroused feelings of tension and disgust in the victim. While the defendant fully exercised his right [to freedom] of expression, the victim also has a right to his reputation.” 14.  On 10 January 2006 the damages and legal fees were paid mainly by the company which published the newspaper.