To the

the General Court of the European Union

 

For the attention of: Registry of the General Court of the European Union

Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald

L-2925 Luxembourg

Tel.: (+352) 4303-1

Fax: (+352) 4303 2100

E-mail: GC.Registry@curia.europa.eu

 

Subject: Direct action based on Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

 

Applicant:

 

Gheorghe Piperea, identified by ID card xxx residing in Romania xxx; with professional headquarters in Romania xxx, the persons responsible for receiving correspondence at the chosen address being xxx, where I request that all procedural documents be sent.

 

In opposition to

 

Defendants:

 

THE EUROPEAN UNION through the European Commission, with its registered office at Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium,

and

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, with its registered office at Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium,

 

pursuant to Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘TFEU’)  I hereby bring this

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIRECT ACTION

 

requesting that the defendants be ordered to compensate me for the damage caused by the unfounded accusations made by  the European Commission through its spokesperson, according to which the motion of censure voted on in the European Parliament (of which I am a signatory and voter) was promoted by ‘Putin’s friends’, that it was an expression of extremism and conspiracy theories and that it was ‘the hand of Moscow’. Furthermore, the motion was allegedly part of a plan by Moscow, which had been in the works since March 2025. [1]

 

I request that you issue a ruling obliging the defendants, the European Union through the European Commission and the European Commission, to:

1. To offer me an official apology for the offence caused to me and for misinforming the citizens of the European Union about me and my political activities;
2. to pay the undersigned claimant, Gheorghe Piperea, moral damages in the amount of … euros.

 

At the same time, I request that the defendants be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred in resolving this dispute, consisting of travel expenses and lawyers’ fees.

 

As a preliminary matter, pursuant to the provisions of Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union, considering that I am a Romanian citizen and in application of the principle of access to justice in a known language, I request that the language of the proceedings before the court be Romanian.

 

1. Explanation of the circumstances justifying the filing of this action

 

1. I, Gheorghe Piperea, am a lawyer registered with the Bucharest Bar since 1996 and a practitioner in insolvency, and previously I was a judge for two years. I obtained the title of “Doctor of Law” with the highest grade from the Sorbonne I University, Paris, and the Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest. My work in the field of law has also resulted in a substantial number of courses, textbooks and publications that have proven to be reference works in the field of law. My professional activity has been crowned by my teaching activity. I am a professor at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Law, lecturer in Romanian Commercial Law and Consumer Protection at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest (Department of Private Law), as well as lecturer in Insolvency Proceedings within the Master’s programme in Business Law at the University of Bucharest. Since 2019, I have also been an arbitrator at the International Commercial Arbitration Court attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania. (Annex I).

 

In 2024, I was elected to the European Parliament as a member of the AUR party in Romania and joined the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, and on 17 September 2024, I was elected Vice-President of this political group.

 

2. On 26 June 2025, I, together with other members of the European Parliament, signed and registered with the European Parliament a motion of censure against the Commission on behalf of the European Parliament. (Annex II.) The motion was formulated in accordance with the powers conferred on the European Parliament by its members, pursuant to the provisions of Article 17(8) of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘TEU’), Article 234 TFEU, Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty and Rule 131 of the Rules of Procedure.

 

The reasons for initiating and tabling the motion of censure are justified by a series of indisputable facts, such as:

 

1. i) the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in May 2025[2] , delivered against the Commission, which found that it “did not provide a plausible explanation to justify its failure to produce the requested documents” in its dealings with Pfizer/BionTech in the purchase of Covid – 19 and annulled the European Commission’s decision to refuse access to SMS messages between the President of the Commission and the CEO of Pfizer between 01.01.2021 and 11.05.2022 concerning the purchase of Covid -19 vaccines;
2. ii) the investigation launched in 2022 by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office into the European Commission’s conduct in relation to the procurement contracts concluded with Pfizer – an investigation that is still ongoing;

iii) Report No 22/2024 of the European Court of Auditors on irregularities in the use of public funds;

1. iv) the non-binding opinion of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) of 23 April 2025 rejecting the European Commission’s use of Article 122 TFEU as the legal basis for the ‘ReArm Europe’ programme.

 

Regarding this last point, I would point out that the statements made in the motion of censure were recently confirmed by the announcement[3] by the European Parliament, which decided to take legal action against the Council of the EU before the Court of Justice of the European Union after the European Commission activated a procedure to bypass the European legislator regarding the €150 billion fund for the SAFE programme, which is part of the ReARM Readiness 2030 plan.

 

All this proves that the Commission has violated the principles of transparency, accountability and good governance, while also creating the conditions for the European Parliament to exercise its supervisory and control powers.

 

3. On 10 July 2025, the motion of censure was rejected by the European Parliament. The debates took place on 7 July 2025 and consisted of short speeches by myself, Gheorghe Piperea, the initiator of the motion of censure, and representatives of the political groups, as well as a speech by Ms Ursula von der Leyen, which exceeded the time allocated under the procedure by 200% (15 minutes instead of 5 minutes).

 

4. During her speech, Ms Ursula von der Leyen, as President of the European Commission, instead of refuting the facts stated in the motion of censure, chose to resort to personal attacks, peppered with verbal clichés and unfounded accusations.

 

Below are some of Ms Ursula von der Leyen’s statements[4] :

“What we have just heard from Mr. Piperea was clear for all to see. It is taken right from the oldest playbook of extremists polarising society, eroding trust in democracy with false claims about election meddling, attempting to rewrite history, how successfully Europe overcame the global pandemic together from vaccines to next generation EU spinning debunked conspiracies about text messages.”

 

5. The hostile and defamatory message from the President of the European Commission was officially endorsed by the European Commission as an institution. On 20 July 2025, the Commission spokesperson stated: “The episode is another reminder that actors proven to be closely associated with Russian state propaganda continue their attempts to polarise and weaken the European Union.”

 

The message is closely linked to the name of the complainant, Gheorghe Piperea, who initiated the motion, and is followed by a description of the context in which this statement was made by the European Commission spokesperson, namely:

“The motion of no confidence against the President of the EU Commission had been tabled by the Romanian MEP, Vice-President of the ECR Group, Gheorghe Piperea, and signed by 77 other MEPs from different political groups of the European extreme right. On 10 July, this motion was rejected by the Strasbourg plenary with 360 votes against and 175 in favour. Already at the time, three days before the vote, opening the plenary debate, Ursula von der Leyen said that the motion had “been signed by Putin’s friends”. “These are movements fuelled by conspiracies and conspiracy theories, which want to polarise our societies, flooding them with disinformation” were her words. (Annex III – Article en.ilsole24ore.com)

 

6. The false statements made by the European Commission, through its spokesperson, against the complainant were picked up by the entire international press. By way of example, we mention the following publications/articles:

 

• Motion against von der Leyen, Kremlin led the campaign since March; what the report reveals (Annex IV – Pamfleti.net article)

 

The European Commission, through its spokesperson Thomas Regnier, stated, “We have been following Russian operations against the EU and the Commission President for some time. Independent fact-checkers have clearly identified these operations in the context of the no-confidence motion.”

 

The same article states that “On 10 July, the motion was rejected by the Strasbourg plenary session with 360 votes against and 175 in favour. Even then, three days before the vote, Ursula von der Leyen, opening the debate in the chamber, said that the motion was ‘signed by Putin’s friends‘.” “These are movements fuelled by conspiracies and conspiracy theories, which seek to polarise our societies by flooding them with misinformation,” she said. However, today, a Commission spokeswoman goes further. In light of the work of independent fact-checkers, the spokeswoman announced, the motion should be seen in the context of “Russian operations against the EU and its president,” which Brussels has “long been following.” (…) The fact-checkers’ reports on the no-confidence vote against Ursula von der Leyen “are a further reminder that there are actors, closely linked to Russian state propaganda, who continue to try to polarise and weaken the European Union,” said Thomas Regnier, a spokesman for the European Commission. “They are opportunistically exploiting events or political discussions in the EU to distort the political debate, spread conspiracy theories or discredit European politicians.”

“The free and independent press in Europe, as well as fact-checkers and researchers, have an important role to play in advancing understanding of this issue,” he concluded.

 

• How von der Leyen’s no-confidence vote fuelled Russian propaganda (Annex V – Articol politico.eu)

 

It is noted that Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier “in a statement that the episode was another reminder that actors proven to be closely associated with Russian state propaganda “continue their attempts to polarise and weaken the European Union.” He added that those actors are “opportunistically exploiting political events or discussions in the EU, to distort the political debate, spread conspiracy theories or discredit European politicians.”

 

• Ursula von der Leyen slams ‘Russian puppets’ as MEPs debate motion to topple her presidency (Annex VI – Article euronews.com)
• Russia used the vote of no confidence against Vonder Leyen to stir up polarisation in the EU (Annex VII – Article elpais.com)
• The EU unmasks Moscow. “It had a hand in the no-confidence vote against Ursula.” (Annex VIII – Article il Giornale)
• Von der Leyen Says No-Confidence Motion Was Initiated by Anti-Vaxxers and Putin Apologists (Annex IX – Article uatv.ua)

 

Referring to the content of the aforementioned press articles, it is clear that the narrative promoted by the President of the European Commission and the spokesperson has reverberated in the press across Europe, perpetuating unfounded, baseless and harmful allegations against the undersigned that the motion of censure was part of a campaign orchestrated by extremist forces and supported by Russian propaganda, aimed at destabilising the European Union.

 

The picture painted by the Commission representatives’ statements is that my legal and well-founded actions serve Moscow’s interests and are fuelled by anti-vaccinationists and “Putin’s apologists”. At the same time, the false, unverified and deeply unfair idea is being put forward that the interest behind the motion is not to defend the interests of European citizens, but to exploit frustrations and erode democracy.

 

7. Of course, these statements were also taken up by the Romanian press, where the image of the undersigned Gheorghe Piperea was seriously damaged. Specifically, the European Commission’s allegations were repeated in both the domestic and international press, and the name of the undersigned Gheorghe Piperea came to be associated with phrases such as: “extremist” (Annex X – Article romania.europalibera.org), “Moscow is behind the initiative of MEP AUR Piperea” (Annex XI – Article stiripesurse.ro), “the motion was signed by Putin’s friends” (and Annex XII – Article pulsulpresei.ro), “Romanian far-right MEP, anti-vaccinationist Gheorghe Piperea” (Annex XIII – Article romania.europalibera.or).

 

With regard to the effect of the defendants’ actions on the Romanian press, the following are also relevant:

 

• The European Commission accuses that behind the motion of censure initiated by MEP Gheorghe Piperea is “the hand of Moscow” (Annex IV – Digi24 article)

 

The article, written by one of Romania’s most widely read news publications, quotes spokesperson Thomas Reigner and informs readers that “Moscow is behind the motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen, which was rejected by the European Parliament 10 days ago and initiated by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea from the AUR. This is the accusation made by a spokesperson for the European Commission, based on the conclusions of several reports prepared by recognised fact-checking organisations, writes ANSA. “We have been monitoring Russian operations against the EU and the Commission President for a long time. Independent fact-checkers have now clearly identified these operations in the context of the motion of censure,” said spokesman Thomas Regnier, citing studies by two companies, Debunk and Check First, which specialise in combating disinformation.

 

• Moscow’s hand behind the AUR motion against Ursula von der Leyen, accuses the European Commission. The vote was accompanied by an intense Russian disinformation campaign (Annex XV – Article hotnews.ro).

 

On this occasion, a prominent Romanian publication has adopted speculative political assertions and perpetuated a negative image of those who initiated the motion of censure – as outlined in the statements of European Commission representatives, associating them, without justification, with Russian propaganda:  “The Commission went further and said that behind the motion were ‘the actors of the Russian disinformation and interference machine’. The denunciation, more explicit than ever since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, came from the spokesperson for the Commission for Digital Affairs, Thomas Regnier, writes the Italian publication Il Giornale. This episode, Regnier said, reminds us once again that<< actors who have proven to be closely associated with Russian state propaganda continue to try to polarise and weaken the EU>> .”

 

8. Since the European Commission did not disavow the statements made by its spokesperson, on 22 July 2025 we sent the President of the European Commission an open letter regarding the false accusations that the motion of censure against the President of the European Commission is supported by Moscow (Annex XVI) in which we requested that, within seven days, the European Commission provide clear evidence of the claim that the Moscow regime is behind the motion.

 

At the same time, I asked the President of the European Commission, in the absence of evidence, to officially apologise to the sender of the letter and the other 79 MEPs who signed the motion, as well as the other 95 MEPs who voted for the motion, and last but not least, to EU citizens for misinformation.

 

It should be noted that the statements made by the spokesperson for the European Commission are based on reports from non-governmental organisations that have analysed opinions in the Russian press, rather than on facts. These non-governmental organisations are described as independent, although they are, directly or indirectly (through their founders or associates), on the list of organisations funded by the EU from the €17 billion fund spent by the EU between 2019 and 2023.

 

In contrast to these reports and “facts”, the motion of censure is based on court rulings, official reports from the European Court of Auditors and documents issued by a European Parliament committee. In comparison, the two types of evidence are diametrically opposed – what the European Commission claims to be facts and truths are, in fact, speculation, interpretations of Russian opinions (which cannot be friendly to the EU, given the EU’s position as an unyielding adversary of Russia) and conspiracy theories,  while the accusations set out in the motion of censure are based on facts, official documents and factual truths.

 

9. In the absence of a response from the European Commission and its President, the false statements against the applicants persist and seriously undermine our rights protected by EU law, both personally and professionally, democracy – as a principle of EU law – and, last but not least, those who voted for us to represent their interests in the European Parliament.

 

10. For this reason, the only remedy for the damage suffered is to file this application for a court order whereby, in accordance with the provisions of Article 340 TFEU, I request that the defendants, and in particular the European Commission (the perpetrator of the unlawful acts), be ordered to compensate the undersigned claimant for the damage caused.

 

1. Statement of the grounds for this action

 

11. According to Article 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter ‘TFEU’), ‘in the field of non-contractual liability, the Union shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the legal systems of the Member States, for any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties.”

 

12. According to the settled case law of the CJEU[5] , the Union’s non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU is subject to several conditions, namely: (i) the unlawfulness of the conduct attributed to the Union institution, (ii) the real nature of the damage, and (iii) the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage alleged.

 

13. As regards the first condition, it is settled case-law[6] that a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals must be identified. It has also been stated that such a breach is established when it involves a manifest and serious disregard by the institution in question of the limits imposed on its discretion, [7]the factors to be taken into account in this regard being, in particular, the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed and the scope of the margin of discretion which the infringed rule leaves to the EU authority. Only when that institution has only a very limited, or even non-existent, margin of discretion may the mere infringement of EU law be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach[8] .

 

14. Thus, in essence, we consider that the Union and, implicitly, its institutions, in this case the Commission, do not have any margin of discretion over the applicants’ personal rights, as the scope of those rights, which are inherent to every citizen of the Union, entirely exceeds the freedom of assessment and decision-making granted to the Union institutions. Specifically, these fundamental subjective rights, recognised by law[9] to every natural person, in consideration of their existence as human beings, which have as their object the protection of the essential values of human identity and dignity, such as life, health, physical and mental integrity, dignity, self-image, private life, honour, reputation and other intrinsic attributes of personality, are not subject to the Union’s margin of appreciation, the unlawfulness of the breach of the Union’s obligations being dictated by the very requirement to respect the fundamental rights of individuals. For this reason, we consider that the mere infringement of Union law, as invoked below, is sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious infringement.

 

15. Nevertheless, in the alternative, we note that the unlawfulness of the Commission’s act of infringing the applicants’ fundamental rights is clear from all the facts of the case referred to above and from the lack of caution and diligence shown by the Commission in its actions, which confirms that the condition of a sufficiently serious breach has been met.

 

16. In the present case, we find ourselves in a situation of a serious infringement of the fundamental rights regulated by European Union law, as protected by the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

17. By its actions, consisting in making defamatory statements, without any supporting evidence, regarding the legitimacy of a parliamentary act (the motion of censure) and the professional and political reputation of its signatories, the European Commission has seriously and directly violated several fundamental rights of the applicants, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the “CFR”), as I will show below:

 

17.1. Violation of Article 1 – Human dignity[10] and Article 7 – Respect for private and family life [11]

 

Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. Honour and reputation are subjective rights that fall within the scope of the right to dignity and, as such, must be adequately guaranteed. The relevance of these fundamental rights in the European context is attested to by their position in the legislative act enshrining the rights, freedoms and principles that the Union undertakes to recognise.

 

At the same time, personal dignity, together with honour, image and reputation, are essential components of private life. In the Court’s established case law, a person’s reputation is recognised as an integral part of their personal identity, protected under Article 7 of the CFR.

 

The accreditation of the idea that the applicant, as a Member of the European Parliament, “continues his attempts to polarise and weaken the European Union” by tabling a motion of censure, and that this was “signed by Putin’s friends“, without any evidence or official finding by a competent body in this regard, constitutes a serious infringement of my private life and dignity, with direct consequences for my personal, professional and public reputation.

 

The statements made publicly by the President of the European Commission and subsequently reiterated by the institution’s official spokesperson, in the absence of any evidence, are legally equivalent to an impermissible interference in my private life.

 

With regard to the beneficiary of the protection guaranteed, the provisions of the Charter do not distinguish between the status of individuals. Protection is granted to all natural persons, regardless of their social status or the dignity they enjoy within the institutions of the Union.

 

The right to reputation is also an integral part of the right to privacy and is an essential element of an individual’s personal and psychological identity, being constantly protected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which firmly sanctions any violation thereof.

 

As a complainant, I benefit from this protection, and it is clear that my political actions, including the initiation of the motion of censure – a specific and legitimate right derived from my status as a Member of the European Parliament – fall within the sphere of legality and democratic exercise.

 

In stark contrast to these legitimate actions of mine are the trivial remarks made by the President of the European Commission and the arbitrary and illegal behaviour of the European Commission, which, through its representatives, has adopted a position of discrediting and denigrating me, without any concrete evidence and inventing ‘facts’ that are in total contradiction with objective reality.

 

17.2. Violation of Article 11 – Freedom of expression and information [12]

 

According to Article 11 of the CFR, freedom of expression, including the right to express opinions and participate in democratic debate, is guaranteed.

However, the motion of censure against the European Commission, introduced on the basis of Article 234 TFEU and Article 17(8) TEU, is a fundamental instrument of democratic control exercised by the European Parliament, forming part of the mission of MEPs and representing an expression of the will of the people.

 

Publicly discrediting this democratic process by associating it with conspiracy theories or propaganda hostile to the European Union constitutes a direct attack not only on the authors of the motion, but on the very democratic function of the European Parliament.

By this conduct, the European Commission unjustifiably restricted the applicants’ freedom of political expression, with the effect of intimidating and discouraging the legitimate expression of critical opinions.

 

• Violation of Article 21 – Non-discrimination [13]

 

Any form of discrimination, including on the basis of political opinions, is prohibited – Article 21(1) of the CFR.

However, the statements made by the spokesperson of the European Commission, statements from which the European Commission has not distanced itself to date, directly targeted a specific group of MEPs who share a certain political orientation and who exercised a right conferred by the Treaties – that of politically challenging the Commission’s activities.

 

The characterisation of these actions as “attempts at destabilisation originating from Russian propaganda” amounts to a stigmatisation of the political opinion expressed by the undersigned (through the exercise of rights held in my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament), in the absence of any evidence or official position of a competent authority. Moreover, the discriminatory effect extends beyond the complainant, affecting a representative segment of EU citizens who share those political convictions and who, through democratic voting, have elected their representatives to the European Parliament.

 

It is particularly relevant that the drafting of a motion of censure is a procedure that is central to democratic mechanisms.

Thus, according to Article 17(8) TEU, ‘The Commission, as a collegiate body, shall be accountable to the European Parliament. The European Parliament may adopt a motion of censure against the Commission in accordance with Article 234 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. If such a motion is adopted, the members of the Commission must resign collectively from their posts, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy must resign from his or her posts in the Commission.”

 

Consequently, we consider that the actions of the Commission, through its spokesperson, in associating, in a clearly unfounded manner, a democratic mechanism with the idea of an attack on European democracy is in itself an illegal act and contrary to the rule of law of the Union.

It is particularly damaging that, through its unfounded and unproven accusations, the Union is overstepping the bounds of prudence and diligence and attempting to silence some of the members of the representative body, thereby trivialising the democratic process.

 

I therefore consider that the actions of the European Commission, confirmed by its subsequent silence in response to my official request for retraction[14] , seriously violate the standards of protection of fundamental rights and undermine the values of the rule of law enshrined in the founding treaties of the Union.

 

• Privileges and immunities of Members of the European Parliament. Violation of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union

 

According to Article 8 of Protocol No. 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, ‘Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or prosecution in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties’. This rule enshrines absolute protection for Members of the European Parliament with regard to expressions of political will that fall within the scope of their representative mandate.

 

A natural consequence of this rule is the prohibition of active forms of coercion against MEPs for their opinions or votes. It is all the more unacceptable for a Union institution to publicly denigrate and discredit them for exercising a procedural right – the tabling of a motion of censure under Article 234 TFEU and Article 17(8) TEU.

 

Therefore, in the context in which the political expression of the undersigned complainant was publicly stigmatised and falsely presented as an act of foreign propaganda or democratic subversion, the European Commission directly and immediately violated the guarantees provided by Protocol No. 7, transforming the protection of parliamentary immunity into a useless fiction.

 

This conduct constitutes a form of indirect coercion, with the effect of intimidating, discouraging and delegitimising a constitutional act expressly regulated by the Union treaties, with serious consequences for the proper functioning of the European institutions and for the sovereignty of political opinion expressed within the European Parliament.

 

Thus, with regard to my status as a Member of the European Parliament, it is clear that the unlawful act of the spokesperson, supported and ratified by the culpable silence of the European Commission, gives rise to a subjective right to full compensation for the damage suffered, under the conditions laid down in Article 340(2) TFEU.

 

• Infringement of Article 41 and the applicability of Article 47

 

In considering the violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the applicants invoke the application of the provisions of Article 41 of the Charter[15] , which guarantees the right of every person to good administration, including, inter alia, the correlative obligation of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union to treat nationals impartially and fairly in the context of their activities.

In addition, Article 47 of the Charter[16] enshrines the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, ensuring free and non-discriminatory access to justice, the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, and respect for all appropriate procedural guarantees.

Consequently, in light of the violation of the provisions of the Charter by the arbitrary and non-transparent actions of the Commission, which have led to a serious infringement of my fundamental rights – to dignity, image, reputation, non-discrimination, expression and exercise of my mandate – which I enjoy both as a citizen of the Union and as a Member of the European Parliament, I consider that Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter are applicable.

 

• Applicability of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

 

In general, under Article 51(1) of the Charter, the provisions of the Charter apply to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, which are required, in the exercise of their powers, to respect the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter and to promote their application, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

 

In particular, with regard to the legal liability of the Union for acts committed by its own agents, Article 340 TFEU enshrines the principle of extra-contractual liability, stating that the Union is obliged to make good any damage caused by its institutions or agents in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the legal systems of the Member States.

 

In light of these provisions, it is essential to emphasise that the spokesperson for the European Commission, Mr. Thomas Regnier, did not act as a mere private individual expressing his personal opinions, but in his official capacity as an agent of the European Union, spokesperson for the European Commission, in the exercise of his institutional duties. His statements, which were picked up and publicised by publications throughout the EU, falsely suggested that the claimant’s political initiative, namely the motion of censure against the European Commission, was supported by Moscow and that these democratic steps were the machinations of “actors closely linked to Russian state propaganda, who continue to try to polarise and weaken the European Union” – were publicly supported in consideration of his official position.

 

The same conclusion is supported by the fact that the European Commission did not see fit to retract or distance itself in any way from the content of its spokesperson’s statements. Furthermore, as we have shown, we have drafted an open letter regarding the false accusations that the motion of censure against the President of the European Commission is supported by Moscow (Annex III). In doing so, we have given the Commission the opportunity to disavow its spokesperson’s statements. However, even on this occasion, the Commission failed to take a position, refraining, to date, from distancing itself from the manifestly illegal and unfounded acts that led to the violation of our fundamental rights. In this way, I consider that the institution has acquiesced in the spokesperson’s position and tacitly ratified his actions through its inaction, thereby justifying the attribution of the culpable acts to the Commission itself.

 

This institutional inaction, manifested by the lack of any official public reaction, is equivalent, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to a tacit ratification of the conduct of its agent and denotes implicit acceptance of the position expressed by him.

In these circumstances, I consider that the necessary elements are in place to hold the European Commission directly liable, as its deliberate passivity has validated the harmful acts of its own representative.

 

At the same time, the European Union, by virtue of the provisions of Article 340 TFEU, is liable for the harmful acts committed by its institutions, in this case the European Commission.

 

• Last but not least, the provisions of Article 52(1) of the CFR are also applicable [17]

 

The restriction of the fundamental rights of the undersigned complainant, carried out through the institutional conduct of the European Union and, in particular, through the false, unverified and unfair official statements of the spokesperson of the European Commission, does not meet any of the requirements laid down in Article 52 of the CFR.

The restriction is not provided for by any rule of law, is not proportionate and does not serve a general interest recognised by the Union. On the contrary, this interference was devoid of any factual basis and has not been supported to date by any concrete, verifiable or objective evidence, which indicates its arbitrary and unfounded nature.

 

More than a mere procedural irregularity, the European Commission’s conduct constitutes an unacceptable interference in the sphere of guaranteed rights, directly affecting the unrestricted exercise of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament and compromising the principles of political pluralism and free debate in a democratic system.

 

By unjustifiably discrediting the complainant and insinuating fictitious external links, without any supporting evidence, the Commission, through its agents, has not only damaged my reputation and integrity, but has also launched a veritable attack on the very essence of the European Union’s democratic mechanism.

The motion of censure is nothing more than the strongest tool by which the opposition can criticise those in power. It is the democratic, institutional means by which pluralistic opinions can be expressed, which is a fundamental pillar of political and constitutional legitimacy.

 

Thus, the actions attributable to the defendant can only be interpreted as a form of disguised suppression of the right to opinion, expression and political action within a legal and democratic framework, seriously undermining confidence in the fair functioning of the Union’s institutions and calling into question their genuine commitment to the values proclaimed in the founding treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

18. In addition to the above arguments, I invoke in support of this application the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which are applicable pursuant to Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[18] .

 

This provision enshrines the principle of parallelism in the protection of fundamental rights and indirectly requires that the interpretation of the rights set out in the Charter be in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

 

Therefore, in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Charter – in particular those concerning human dignity (Article 1), private life (Article 7), freedom of expression (Article 11), freedom of thought and opinion (Article 10), non-discrimination (Article 21) – the corresponding provisions of the ECHR become relevant, namely: Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8)

 

and family life (Article 8)[19] Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)[20] Freedom of expression (Article 10)[21] Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14)[22] .

 

The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that respect for fundamental rights is an essential component of the general principles of law governing the legal order of the Union, which it is called upon to safeguard. In this task, the Court has played a key role in developing and consolidating standards for the protection of fundamental rights, thereby contributing to the strengthening of the rule of law at European level. In interpreting these rights, the Court has consistently drawn inspiration from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States and from the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, in the drafting and application of which the Member States of the Union have actively participated.[23]

 

18.1. Right to respect for private and family life – Articles 1 and 7 of the ECHR. The public statements made by the spokesperson of the European Commission, which were not supported by any concrete evidence, are defamatory and clearly offensive in nature, seriously damaging the public reputation and honour of the applicants – fundamental values that are an integral part of private life, as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

In its established case law, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a person’s reputation is an essential aspect of private life. Furthermore, the Court has explicitly stated that the Convention cannot be interpreted as meaning that individuals should tolerate accusations of criminal offences made publicly by government officials – persons from whom the public expects verified and credible information – without those statements being supported by concrete facts.[24]

 

Therefore, such statements, coming from an official representative of the European Commission, not only seriously affect the dignity and public image of the applicant, but also contravene the standards of protection established by the case law of the Strasbourg Court and the commitments made by the Union in the field of respect for fundamental rights.

 

18.2. Freedom of thought, conscience and opinion – Article 10 of the ECHR. The Commission’s public statements – “were signed by Putin’s friends“, “attempts to polarise and weaken the European Union continue“, “there are actors, closely linked to Russian state propaganda, who continue to try to polarise and weaken the European Union” are tantamount to stigmatising legitimate and well-argued political opinions expressed in the exercise of the mandate of MEP.

 

This form of indirect pressure has an inhibiting effect on freedom of political opinion, contrary to ECHR case law, according to which states (and, by extension, supranational institutions) must ensure a pluralistic and tolerant space for diverse opinions.

 

• Freedom of expression – Article 11 of the ECHR. Exercising the right to initiate a motion of censure implicitly implies the freedom to communicate ideas and political opinions critical of the Commission’s activities, a right protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. In this regard, the Strasbourg Court has repeatedly emphasised that the importance of freedom of expression applies not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or considered inoffensive or indifferent, but also to those that offend, shock or cause concern. In this regard, it noted that pluralism, tolerance and openness are necessary, without which there can be no “democratic society”. [25]

 

However, the defendant’s reaction – through its spokesperson – is tantamount to institutional retaliation, affecting the climate of free debate and constituting unjustified interference in a democratic society.

 

18.4 Prohibition of discrimination – Article 21 The public statements not only infringed the fundamental rights mentioned above, but also had a discriminatory effect by stigmatising a category of elected representatives of the European Parliament – the signatories of the motion – in an undifferentiated manner, presenting them as agents of a foreign power.

 

19. Article 14 of the ECHR is thus applicable, as the restriction of rights was not carried out in an individualised, proportionate and justified manner, but by assimilating the entire democratic action with collective ideological guilt. Guilt by association is an illegal, outdated concept belonging to both types of totalitarianism of the last century: Nazism and communism. Under no circumstances can this concept be accepted in 21st-century democracy. Under no circumstances should these two scourges of the last century be revived, least of all by senior EU representatives.

 

20. Equally, as far as I am concerned, by virtue of the provisions of Article 52(4) and (6)[26] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrine the role of common constitutional traditions and national legislation in defining and interpreting the rights guaranteed by the Charter, I request that the Court, in its analysis, also take into account the relevant provisions of Romanian domestic law, which expressly enshrine and protect fundamental rights such as human dignity, honour, privacy and freedom of expression.

 

In view of the facts of the case, it is entirely justified for the court to take into account the standards of protection provided for in Romanian national law, since they contribute to strengthening the interpretation of the protection afforded by EU law. This approach is not only permitted by the rules of the Charter, but is necessary to ensure effective, consistent and thorough protection of fundamental rights in the European legal order.

 

Specifically, the fundamental rights violated by the defamatory statements made by the spokesperson of the European Commission are protected under Romanian law by virtue of the provisions of the Romanian Constitution – Article 1(3)[27] , Article 26(1)[28] and Article 30(6)[29] – and the Romanian Civil Code[30] .

 

Thus, in full accordance with the guarantees regulated at Union level, domestic legislation sanctions actions and omissions of a defamatory or stigmatising nature against individuals. Respect for private life, honour and reputation is a constitutional guarantee, which establishes a positive correlative obligation on public authorities to protect the intimate, family and private life of citizens. In addition, the Romanian Civil Code regulates personality rights and gives the injured person the possibility to request both a finding of infringement and full compensation for the moral damage suffered. This is provided for in Article 69 of the Romanian Civil Code.

 

21. From the combination of all the above provisions, we can conclude that both the case law of the CJEU and the Court of Strasbourg, as well as national regulations, enshrine the protection and respect of the fundamental human rights to privacy, dignity, honour, reputation, freedom of expression, and a high standard of prohibition of discrimination.

 

Equally, all regulations, both at European and domestic level, provide that interference by institutions or authorities is the more serious as it has an intimidating effect on the free exercise of fundamental rights. Limiting the freedom of expression of an elected representative of the people through personal attacks or discriminatory treatment is not only an attack on that individual, but also a violation of the collective right of citizens to be freely represented at European level.

 

22. With regard to the damage,

 

The damage suffered by the undersigned is non-pecuniary, consisting of damage to dignity, honour and reputation, as well as freedom of expression, as explained above.

 

22.1. In assessing this damage, consideration should be given to the reputation that I have managed to build up through years of work. In this regard, a reflection of my image in society, in the professional and academic environment can be seen in the content of my personal CV, attached to this application.

 

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the defamatory accusations come from the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, which has the role of defending the interests of European citizens and assuming responsibility with dignity in the face of democratic initiatives taken by the European Parliament as a supervisory body.

It should not be overlooked that the European Parliament, through its members, also has the role of supervising and controlling the activities of the executive and even dismissing it in the event of violations of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties.

 

22.2. The defendant’s statements and their effect on public opinion and, implicitly, within the European Parliament may also constitute a constraint or an act of intimidation of MEPs in terms of how they understand to exercise the mandate given to them by voters within the European Parliament. Such interference with the fundamental rights to image, reputation and dignity may have a negative impact on democracy within the European Parliament. At the same time, it infringes the immunity enjoyed by MEPs in the performance of their duties under Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union.

 

• It should be noted that, in the present case, we are not dealing with a simple dispute between private individuals, but with conduct attributable to a central institution of the European Union, which requires the application of higher standards of responsibility and diligence. Specifically, the representatives of the European Commission acted publicly in a manner that exceeds any legitimate limit of critical expression, placing in a position of discrediting and stigmatising elected members of the European Parliament without any probative basis.

 

23. Last but not least, the amount of the damage is justified by the effects that the Union’s unlawful conduct has had on the image propagated in the domestic and international press regarding the signatories of this motion of censure.

As far as I am concerned, it is relevant that one of the largest news publications in Romania took up the Union’s unfounded accusations and stated that ‘Moscow is behind the motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen, rejected by the European Parliament 10 days ago, and initiated by Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea from the AUR. This is the accusation made by a spokesperson for the European Commission, based on the conclusions of several reports prepared by recognised fact-checking organisations, writes ANSA.” (Annex XIV – Digi24 article)

However, given that Digi24 is (according to a study conducted in 2023[31] ) the most cited media source in Romania, it is clear that an article based on false information perpetuated by European Commission officials has a negative impact on the claimant’s credibility, on his political and professional legitimacy and, implicitly, on his private life.

 

• Thus, the defendant’s culpable attitude, coupled with the international media impact of the statements made, seriously damages the dignity and image of the complainants, causing amplified harm not only at a personal level, but also at an institutional level, by undermining the credibility of the elected representatives of the citizens of the Union.

 

• Last but not least, with regard to determining the amount of compensation sought, given that it is not possible to identify precise scientific criteria for establishing the amount of non-pecuniary damage, the assessment of non-pecuniary damage is not limited to determining the price of mental and physical suffering, which are inestimable, but represents a multilateral assessment of all the negative events of the damage and its implications at all social levels for the injured party.

 

In concrete terms, the compensation awarded under Article 340 TFEU aims, as far as possible, to restore the claimant to the situation they were in before the events giving rise to the claim. Losses may be both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, as in the case of moral damage.

 

In most legal systems, the concept of “moral damage” refers to types of damage that are intangible and cannot easily be assigned an economic value since, strictly speaking, they have no market value. Typical examples of such damages include pain and suffering, emotional distress, damage to image, reputation, quality of life or personal relationships. It is essential to note that, with regard to this type of damage, claimants are not required to provide additional evidence of their suffering, as it is sufficient to prove that their fundamental rights have been violated.

 

• The Court has full discretion in assessing the amount of non-pecuniary damage to be awarded. However, in determining this amount, it will take into account the circumstances of the case, the person of the claimant, the person of the defendant and, of course, the repercussions that the alleged facts may have on society – the general context in which the infringement occurred.

 

24. The condition relating to the causal link, laid down in the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, concerns the existence of a sufficiently direct link between the unlawful conduct complained of and the damage alleged[32] .

 

In that regard, I would point out that the public, official statements made by the President of the European Commission and her spokesperson in the context of the drafting and debate of a lawful and well-founded motion of censure directly gave rise to a defamatory association between the image of the initiator of the motion and the regime in Moscow, without this statement being supported by objective or verifiable evidence.

 

The major media impact of these statements – reflected in the international and national press, directly and by name – caused me concrete moral and professional damage, consisting of  compromising my political reputation, publicly discrediting the legitimate parliamentary initiative and damaging my image in the eyes of the electorate.

 

This damage to my image would not have occurred in the absence of the Commission’s actions and the failure to take an explicit position distancing itself from the defamatory statements, despite the public appeals of the complainants (see the Open Letter sent on 22 July 2025), reinforced the public perception generated by these unproven accusations.

 

Consequently, I consider that the unlawful conduct alleged against the Union has a clear causal link with the non-material damage suffered by the applicants, and that the requirements of Article 340(2) TFEU for the defendants to be held liable in non-contractual matters are met.

 

• CONCLUSIONS

 

25. In conclusion, I note that the right to privacy and reputation are at the core of the protection afforded by the EU Charter, and any interference by an institution must be proportionate, necessary and objectively justified. Therefore, in light of the facts presented and these legal benchmarks recognised by the Union, I consider that the three conditions for non-contractual liability are cumulatively met:

• the unlawful act consists in the European Commission’s publication and acceptance of unproven statements of a defamatory nature, which affect the dignity, private life, freedom of expression and equal treatment of the applicants;
• the damage consists of serious harm to the reputation, image and political and professional credibility of the applicants, reinforced and propagated by massive international media coverage;
• there is a direct causal link between the institution’s statements and the damage caused, as they triggered the negative effects complained of, in the absence of any evidence or official proceedings.

 

26. For all the above reasons, I request that this application be admitted before the General Court of the European Union and that the defendants be ordered to compensate for the damage caused by the European Commission’s unfounded allegations that the motion of censure voted on in the European Parliament (of which I am the initiator, signatory and voter) was supported by Moscow.

 

27. I consider that fair and full reparation consists, on the one hand, in obtaining an official apology from the European Commission for the defamatory statements made against the applicant and for misinforming the citizens of the European Union and, on the other hand, in ordering the defendants to pay the amounts mentioned in the claim as moral damages.

 

 

 

 

1. EVIDENCE

 

In support of our claim, we submit the following documents:

 

In proof of Mr Gheorghe Piperea’s status as a university professor of law and lawyer at the Bucharest Bar:

Annex I.1. – Decision to enter the profession no. 496 of 23 May 1996

Annex I.2. – Curriculum vitae of Gheorghe Piperea

Annex I.3. – Certificate issued by the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest

Annex II. – Motion of censure against the Commission of 26 June 2025 (English version)

 

To prove the alleged wrongdoing:

Annex III. – Article on en.ilsole24ore.com – EU accuses Moscow of being behind motion of no confidence in Ursula von der Leyen, 20 July 2025

Annex IV. – Article pamfleti.net – Motion against von der Leyen, Kremlin led the campaign since March; what the report reveals, 20 July 2025

Annex V. – Article politico.eu – How von der Leyen’s no-confidence vote fuelled Russian propaganda, 21.07.2025

Annex VI. – Article euronews.com – Ursula von der Leyen slams ‘Russian puppets’ as MEPs debate motion to topple her presidency

Annex VII. – Article elpais.com – Russia used the vote of no confidence against Vonder Leyen to stir up polarisation in the EU

Annex VIII. – Article il Giornale – The EU unmasks Moscow. “It had a hand in the no-confidence vote against Ursula.”

Annex IX. – Article uatv.ua – Von der Leyen Says No-Confidence Motion Was Initiated by Anti-Vaxxers and Putin Apologists, 10.07.2025

Annex X. – Article romania.europalibera.org – Ursula von der Leyen, at the debate on the motion of censure in the European Parliament: “Extremists must not rewrite history”

Annex XI. – Article stiripesurse.ro – European Commission makes accusations after no-confidence motion against von der Leyen: Moscow allegedly behind MEP AUR Piperea’s initiative

Annex XII. – Article pulsulpresei.ro – European Commission denounces Moscow’s influence behind the motion of censure launched by MEP Gheorghe Pipere

Annex XIII. – Article romania.europalibera.org – Head of the European Commission in the European Parliament after the failure of the AUR motion against her: battle between democracy and illiberalism, 10 July 2025

Annex XIV. – Digi24 article – European Commission accuses “Moscow’s hand” of being behind the motion of censure initiated by MEP Gheorghe Pipere, 22 July 2025

Annex XV. – Hotnews.ro article – The European Commission accuses Moscow of being behind the AUR motion against Ursula von der Leyen. The vote was accompanied by an intense Russian disinformation campaign.

 

 

 

With kind regards,

Gheorghe Piperea

[1] Although the motivation and idea for the motion of censure only emerged at the end of May 2025.

[2]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?mode=lst&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;docid=299492&amp;part=1&amp;doclang=EN&amp;text=&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;cid=1965644

 

[3] https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/european-parliament-sues-council-over-e150-billion-defence-loan-scheme/

 

[4]    Verbatim report of proceedings – Motion of censure on the Commission (debate) – Monday, 7 July 2025

 

[5]  Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 in Case T-201/17, Printeos SA and Commission,

Judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C-8/15 P-C-10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701

 

[6] Judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C-8/15 P-C-10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraph 65 and the case law cited, and Judgment of 30 May 2017, Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council, C-45/15 P, EU:C:2017:402

 

[7] Judgment of 30 May 2017, Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council, C-45/15 P, EU:C:2017:402,

 

[8] Judgment of 10 July 2003, Commission v Fresh Marine, C-472/00 P, EU:C:2003:399, paragraph 26 and the case law cited therein, and Judgment of 4 April 2017, Ombudsman v Staelen,

[9] In this regard, we point out in this application that the fundamental rights infringed by the Union are those protected by the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

[10] Article 1 Human dignity Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.

 

[11] Article 7 Respect for private and family life Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

[12] Article 11 Freedom of expression and information (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (2) The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

 

[13] Article 21 Non-discrimination (1) Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (2) Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

[14] See in this regard the Open Letter on the false allegations that the motion of censure against the President of the European Commission is supported by Moscow (Annex III).

[15] Article 41 Right to good administration “(1) Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.

(3) Every person has the right to have the Union make good any damage caused by its institutions or bodies in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.”

 

[16] Article 47 Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.

Everyone is entitled to a fair, public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone has the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.

Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources, insofar as this is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.

[17] Article 52 Scope and interpretation of rights and principles Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, restrictions may be imposed only if they are necessary and only if they effectively meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

[18] According to this text, “insofar as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention.”

[19] Art. 8 ECHR 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. in a democratic society, a necessary measure for national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

[20] Art. 9 ECHR 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of order, health, or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

[21] Art. 10 ECHR 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from subjecting radio, television or cinema enterprises to a licensing regime. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for preventing the disclosure of secrets of a public nature. in a democratic society, constitute necessary measures in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

[22] ART. 14 ECHR The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 

[23] Presentation – Court of Justice of the European Union – CURIA

 

[24]  ECHR, Jishkariani v. Georgia, paras. 59-62

 

[25]  ECHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, para. 49; Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, para. 59).

[26] Article 52 Scope and interpretation of rights and principles (4), “insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, these rights shall be interpreted in accordance with those traditions“. (6), ‘national laws and practices must be fully taken into account, as specified in this Charter’.

[27] Art. 1 para. (3) “Romania is a democratic and social state governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the rights and freedoms of citizens […] are supreme values […]”

 

[28] Art. 26 para. (1) “Public authorities shall respect and protect intimate, family and private life.”

 

[29] Art. 30 para. (6) “Freedom of expression shall not prejudice the dignity, honour, private life of the person or the right to one’s own image.”

 

[30] Art. 72 para. (1): “Every person has the right to respect for their dignity and their own image.”;

 

Art. 72 para. (2): “Any attack on a person’s honour and reputation is prohibited […]”;

 

Art. 75: “Infringement of privacy may consist of, but is not limited to: […] the disclosure of untrue facts or the distorted presentation of real facts.”

 

[31] The August 2023 ranking of the most important mass media outlets in Romania opens with Digi 24. According to mediaTRUST, Digi 24 was cited by other journalists in the country 854 times.

 

[32] Judgment of 18 March 2010, Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission, C-419/08 P, EU:C:2010:147, Judgment of 30 May 2017, Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council, C-45/15 P, EU:C:2017:402,