Disciplinary penalties for criticism and the right to freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Ana Ioniţă v.Roumania 21-03-2017 (no. 30655/09)
SUMMARY
Freedom of expression. The applicant is a notary and the National Union of Romanian Public Notaries has imposed a number of disciplinary sanctions against her.She disputed them arguing that they violated the freedom of expression. On television she criticized the operation of UNNPR and the Bacau Notarial Chamber (CNB), of which she was also a member. On the basis of her statements she was sentenced by the above disciplinary body to a disciplinary sentence of a four-month suspension of her notary duties. The applicant complained that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 10 of the ECHR. However, the ECtHR issued a negative decision
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ana Ioniţă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Piatra Neamţ. She is a public notary and her professional authority imposed various disciplinary sanctions on her. She challenged them claiming a breach of her freedom of expression.
In January 2006 the disciplinary board of the UNNPR (National Union of Romanian Public Notaries) issued Ms Ioniţă with a reprimand for anomalies in her work and failure to pay professional tax. In July 2006 she was suspended from her duties. In August 2006, after paying the sums due, Ms Ioniţă was reinstated by order of the Ministry of Justice.
In September 2006, while taking part in a televised debate, Ms Ioniţă explained on air that she was going on a hunger strike because of her disagreement with the professional tax levied by the UNNPR. She criticised the running of the UNNPR and the Chamber of Notaries of Bacău (CNB), of which she was a member. In October 2006 the CNB’s executive board decided to open disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. In a decision of January 2007, the disciplinary board of the UNNPR ordered Ms Ioniţă’s suspension from her duties as notary for a period of four months on the ground that her statements on television had impugned the honour and professional integrity of the profession of notary, and had harmed the image of the UNNPR and the CNB. Ms Ioniţă challenged the decision before the UNNPR board, which rejected her complaint. She appealed on points of law and the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed her appeal.
Ms Ioniţă complained that there had been a breach of her right to freedom of expression unde Article 10 of the Convention.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 10
