Dreptul de Informare

8/13/2019 Dreptul de Informare

1/6

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

7

DREPTUL LA INFORMAIE

ELEMENT PRINCIPAL AL LIBERTII

DE EXPRIMARE. STANDARDEEUROPENE I ROMNETI

Prof. univ. dr. Ovidiu PREDESCUUniversitatea George Bariiu, Braov

Rezumat: Autorul analizeaz dreptul lainformaie n lumina Conveniei europene pentru

aprarea drepturilor omului i a libertilorfundamentale, a jurisprudenei Curii Europene a

Drepturilor Omuluii a dreptului romn.Dup ce menioneaz cacest drept constituie

unul dintre cele douelemente principale ale dreptului lalibertatea de exprimare, alturi de dreptul la libertatea deopinie, autorul arat, pe de o parte, c libertatea deinformare presupune responsabilitate iar, pe de altparte,caceasta trebuie respectatatt de autoritile publice,

cti de ctre orice persoanfizicsau juridic.

Cuvinte cheie: dreptul la informaie, libertateade exprimare, libertatea de opinie, Curtea European a

Drepturilor Omului.

Potrivit art. 10 parag. 1 din Conveniaeuropeanpentru aprarea drepturilor omului ia libertilor fundamentale (n continuareConvenia european), dreptul la libertatea deexprimare a persoanei conine dou elemente

principale, i anume: libertatea de opinie ilibertatea de informare.

Dreptul la informaie este un dreptfundamental nou pentru legislaia romn, fiind

receptat de Constituia Romniei [art. 31] (ncontinuare Constituia) din instrumentelejuridice internaionale, printre care se numriConvenia european. Aceasta din urm, atuncicnd se refer la libertatea de informare,utilizeaz noiuni, cum ar fi primire oricomunicare. Este vorba, desigur, att delibertatea de a primi informaii n mod liber idin diverse surse, ct i de a difuza informaii,fr nicio ingerin din partea autoritilor

publice.

ns, aceast libertate presupune

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION - MAIN

ELEMENT OF FREEDOM OF

EXPRESSION. EUROPEAN ANDROMANIAN STANDARDS

Prof. PhD Ovidiu PREDESCUUniversity George Bariiu, Braov

Abstract: The author analyses the right toinformation in the light of the European Convention for

defence of the human rights and the main liberties, of thejurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and

Romanian right.After stating that this right is one of the two main

elements of the right to expression freedom, next to the rightof opinion freedom, the author shows, on one side, that thefreedom to information supposes responsibility and, on theother side, this should be respected by public authorities, aswell as by any natural or juridical person.

Key words: the right to information, expressionfreedom, opinion freedom, European Court of Human Rights.

According to art. 10 paragraph 1 from theEuropean Convention for defending the humanrights and main liberties (as follows, the EuropeanConvention), the right to freedom expression ofthe person contains two main elements, namely:

freedom to opinion and freedom to information.

The right to information is a new,fundamental right for Romanian legislation, beingreceived by Romanias Constitution [art.31] (as

follows Constitution) from international juridicalinstruments, among which it is also considered theEuropean Convention. The latter one, when itrefers to the freedom of information, uses notions,like acceptance or communication. It is aboutthe freedom to receive information in a freemanner and from different sources, as well as tospread information, without any interference fromthe public authorities.

But, this freedom supposes responsibility,as in the social life there is no freedom beyond

any limits. These limits refer to defending some


2/6



8

responsabilitate, deoarece n viaa social nupoate exista libertate dincolo de orice limite.Aceste limite se refer la aprarea unor valorisociale i a drepturilor i reputaiei aparinnd

altor persoane. Dacaceste limite sunt depite,acest lucru poate atrage rspunderea civil,administrativsau chiar penala celor vinovaide comiterea unor fapte ce se circumscriu ntr-oasemenea sfer.

Totui, principiul libertii de informarermne ns n toat substana sa i se impuneca atare att autoritilor publice, ct i oricroralte persoane fizice sau juridice1.

Mai mult, este nevoie ca nseiautoritile statale s vegheze la asigurarea

respectrii dreptului la opinie i la informare,ceea ce nseamn c statul, pe de o parte, nutrebuie s stnjeneasc n niciun fel exerciiulliber al acestor drepturi (obligaie negativ), iar,

pe de altparte, el trebuie sasigure exerciiullor n scopul nfptuirii pluralismului de opinii ide idei (obligaie pozitiv).

n literatura juridic de specialitate s-aartat c, n acest mod conceput, libertatea deexprimare este garania unei informri obiectivei a pluralitii () oricare i-ar fi forma,

suportul sau finalitatea. Ea se aplicnu numai lamass-media, ci i tuturor creatorilor dindomeniile tiinific, literar sau artistic2.

Curtea Europeana Drepturilor Omului(n continuare C.E.D.O.) a decis c art. 10 dinConvenia european privete nu numaiconinutul informaiilor, dar i mijloacele princare acestea sunt transmise sau captate,deoarece orice restricie adus acestora atingensui dreptul de a primi i de a comunicainformaii.3

De asemenea, Curtea de la Strasbourg s-a pronunat n mod constant referitor laimportana libertii de comunicare ntr-osocietate democratic. Aceasta presupunedreptul de a primi, de a recepiona toateinformaiile transmise prin mass-media, maiales cele de interes general.

Astfel, n cauza Herczegfalvy contraAustriei4, petiionarul a reclamat cn intervalulmai 1972-mai 1977 a executat mai multe

pedepse pentru loviri i rniri provocate soiei i

social values and the rights and reputationbelonging to some other persons. In case theselimits are exceeded, this thing can withdraw civil,administrative and even penal responsibility of the

ones that are guilty for committing some actionsthat are included in such a sphere.Still, the principle of freedom to

information remains in its entire substance and itis imposed as such to public authorities, as well asto any other natural or juridical persons9.

Moreover, it is necessary that politicalauthorities watch over ensuring the modality ofrespecting the right to opinion and information,which means that the state, on one side, should notdisturb, in any way, the free exercise of these

rights (negative liability) and on the other side, itshould ensure their exercise in the purpose ofrealising the pluralism of opinions and ideas(positive liability).

In the specialty juridical literature it wasshown that, this way perceived, the expressingfreedom is the border of any objective informationand of plurality (...) not matter its form, support orfinality. It is applied not only to mass-media, butalso to all creators from the scientific, literary andartistically field.10

The European Court of Human Rights(named as follows E.C.H.R.) decided that art. 10from the European Convention regards not onlythe content of the information, but also themodalities through which these are transmittedand received, as any restriction brought to thesegets the right to receive and to communicateinformation.11

Also, the Strasbourg Court judged in aconstant manner on the importance of thecommunication freedom in a democratic society.This supposes the right to receive, to acceptinformation transmitted through mass-media,especially the ones in general interest.

So, in the cause Herczegfalvy againstAustria12, the petitioner claimed that in the periodMay 1972 - May 1977 executed several

punishments for beating and injuries provoked tohis wife and to the customers from his shop ofrepairing TV sets, as well as to agents of publicorder.

Through a judicial decision, the petitioner


3/6



9

clienilor atelierului su de reparat televizoare,ca i agenilor de ordine public.

Printr-o hotrre judectoreasc,reclamantul a fost declarat parial incapabil i

pus sub ocrotirea unui consiliu judiciar.Cu toate acestea, el a continuat s semanifeste violent i saplice lovituri gardienilori s profereze ameninri la adresamagistrailor.

Dup terminarea executrii pedepsei,instana, lund avizul mai multor specialiti

psihiatri, a dispus ca petiionarul srmnmaideparte ncarcerat, acesta fiind internat ntr-unspital pentru infractori alienai. Instana amotivat luarea acestei msuri pe baza

diagnosticului de paranoia stabilit de specialitii din necesitatea de a se preveni comiterea unornoi infraciuni de ctre acesta, care erairesponsabil de faptele sale agresive.

Tribunalul a confirmat msurile mai susindicate, iar recursul petiionarului a fostrespins. Mai mult, controalele medicale despecialitate ulterioare au relevat necesitateameninerii petiionarului n spitalul de alienai.

Examinnd motivele expuse dereclamant n cererea sa, C.E.D.O. a constatat c

ele sunt ntemeiate numai n parte, i anume cexist o violare a prevederilor art. 10 dinConvenia european, n sensul c, n perioadade deinere, reclamantul a fost lipsit de dreptulla informaie, fiind privat de posibilitatealecturii, a citirii ziarelor, precum i a urmririiemisiunilor de radio i de televiziune (chiar dacn raport de art. 5 din legea austriac asupraspitalelor aceste msuri erau justificate i pentruraiuni terapeutice, instana de contencioseuropean a apreciat cele au fost excesive).

n aceast materie, n dreptul romn,Legea sntii mintale i a proteciei

persoanelor cu tulburri psihice nr. 487/20025nu prevede posibilitatea unui regim de izolare,de natura celui impus reclamantului judecat deC.E.D.O., n cazul bolnavilor psihici cutulburri grave.

Cu referire la drepturile persoanelor cutulburri psihice, n art. 35 alin. 4 din lege se

prevede c acestea au dreptul s exercite toate

drepturile civile, politice, economice, sociale i

was declared as being partially incapable andpositioned under the defence of a judicial council.

Even so, he continued to act in a violentmanner and beat guards and to belch threats at the

address of the magistrates.After ending the execution of thepunishment, the instance, taking the notification ofseveral psychiatrists, disposed that the petitionerremains further incarcerated, this being recoveredin a hospital for disordered law breakers. Thecourt motivated taking this decision based on the

paranoia diagnosis that was established byspecialists and from the necessity to be preventedcommitting some new aggressions by this, whowas irresponsible of his aggressive actions.

The court reaffirmed that the above-mentioned measures and the recourse of the

petitioner was rejected. Moreover, the ulteriorspecialty medical verifications presented thenecessity of maintaining the petitioner in ahospital for disordered persons.

Examining the reasons exposed by theplaintiff in his request, E.C.H.R. observed thatthese have only a partial base and namely thatthere is a breach of provisions of art. 10 from theEuropean Convention, in the sense that, during

detention period, the plaintiff was prevented fromthe right to information, being deprived of theright to information, being deprived of the

possibility of reading, reading newspapers, as wellas of attending radio and television emissions(even if in rapport with art. 5 from the Austrianlaw on hospitals, these measures were justifiedalso for therapeutic aspects, the court of Europeancontentious stated that these have been excessive).

In this respect, in the Romanian law, theLaw of mental health and protection of personswith psychical disorders, no. 487/200213does not

predict the possibility of an isolation regime, beinglike the one imposed to the plaintiff judged byE.C.H.R., in case of psychical ill persons withgrave disorders.

Regarding the rights of the persons withpsychical disorders, in art. 35, par. 4 from the lawit is mentioned that they have the right to developall civil, political, economic, social and culturalrights, which are recognised in the Universal

Declaration of human rights, as well as in other


4/6



10

culturale recunoscute n Declaraia universaladrepturilor omului, precum i n alte convenii(deci i n Convenia european) i tratateinternaionale la care Romnia a aderat sau este

parte, cu excepia cazurilor prevzute de lege.n art. 36 alin.1 lit. c din acelai actnormativ se prevede pentru persoanele cutulburri psihice, printre alte drepturi i liberti,i libertatea de acces la ziare, la radio i lateleviziune.

Totodat, n art. 59 alin. 1 lit. c se aratc printre drepturile pacientului cu tulburri

psihice internat nevoluntar (chiar i cel cutulburri psihice grave) care nu pot fi limitate, senumri accesul la pressau la publicaii.

Aadar, n cadrul tratamentului, oimportan hotrtoare o are punerea ladispoziia bolnavului a posibilitilor decomunicare i de informare pe care le areunitatea sanitar, sprijinirea contactului acestuiacu persoanele din afar, n msura n careaceasta se dovedete utiltratamentului.

n cauza Sunday Times contra MariiBritanii, C.E.D.O. a decis c este necesar a seadmite discutarea ntr-un ziar a unei cauze de perolul instanelor judectoreti (cum ar fi o

procedur judiciar n curs ntre petiionari,victime ale unui medicament duntor, i firma

productoare), atunci cnd aceasta privete uninteres general, n spe fiind vorba despresntatea public6.

Este de notorietate faptul cinformaiilese transmit cel mai adesea prin pres. Prinurmare, n jurisprudena Curii de la Strasbourg

cu referire la pres s-a relevat cgaraniileacordate acesteia au o importan cu totuldeosebit, cla funcia sa care constn a difuzase adaug dreptul pentru public de a primiinformaii i cpresa este cinele de paz alunei societi democratice, ea avnd tocmairolul de a informa, de a controla i de a relatadespre toate domeniile de interes public, de lacele referitoare la responsabiliti politice, lafuncionarea instituiilor i serviciilor publice,

pnla aprecierea oportunitii de a beneficia deservicii veterinare de noapte.

n art. 31 alin. 1 din Constituie se

precizeaz c: Dreptul persoanei de a avea

conventions (so, also in the European Convention)and international treaties to which Romaniaadhered or is a part of, except the cases foreseen

by the law.

In art. 36 par.1 letter c from the samenormative document, for persons with mentaldisorders is provided, among other rights andliberties, also the freedom to access at newspapers,radio and television.

Still, in art. 59 par. 1 letter c it is shownthat among the rights of the patient with mentaldisorders that is recovered in an involuntarymanner (even the one with grave mentaldisorders) which cannot be limited, can be foundthe access to press or other publications.

So, as part of the treatments, a decisiveimportance is the one of putting at the disposal ofthe ill person, the possibility of communicate andinforming that the sanitary unit has, supporting hiscontact with outside persons, to the extent inwhich this proved useful to the treatment.

In the cause Sunday Times against GreatBritain, E.C.H.R. decided that it is necessary toadmit discussing in a newspaper a cause fromthose pending on the trial instances (like a judicial

procedure that is in process between petitioners,

victims of a damaging medication, and theproducing company), when it concerns a generalinterest, precisely being about public health14.

It is of notoriety the fact that informationis transmitted most often by press. As a result, inthe jurisprudence of the Court from Strasbourg regarding press it was mentioned that theguarantees granted to him have a specialimportance, that at its function made by thediffusion it is also added the right for the public toreceive information and that press is the guardingdog of a democratic society, it having the role ofinforming, controlling and narrating on all fieldsof public interest, from the ones regarding politicalresponsibilities , to functioning of publicinstitutions and services, up to appreciating theopportunities to take advantage of nightveterinary services.

In art. 31 par. 1 from the Constitution, it ismentioned that: The right of a person to haveaccess to any information of public interest cannot

be enclosed.


5/6



11

acces la orice informaie de interes public nupoate fi ngrdit.

Dreptul la informaie cuprinde: dreptulpersoanei de a fi informat la timp i corect

despre msurile luate de autoritile publice;accesul liber la sursele de informare politic,tiinific i tehnic, social, cultural, sportivetc.; posibilitatea de a recepiona personal i nmod normal emisiunile de radio i televiziune;obligaia autoritilor publice de a crea condiiile

juridice pentru difuzarea liber i ampl ainformaiei de orice natur7.

n art. 31 alin. 4 al Constituiei seprevede cmijloacele de informare n massuntpublice i private; ele sunt obligate s asigure

informarea corecta opiniei publice.De asemenea, trebuie menionat dreptul

la anten, faptul cserviciile publice de radio ide televiziune sunt autonome i c acesteatrebuie sasigure principalelor grupuri sociale i

politice exercitarea dreptului la anten (art. 31alin. 5 din Constituie).

Acest drept este garantat de caracterulautonom al serviciilor publice de radio i deteleviziune.

n acelai timp, n art. 41 alin. 1 i 2 din

Legea nr. 275/2006 privind executareapedepselor i a msurilor dispuse de organelejudiciare n cursul procesului penal8se prevedec dreptul persoanelor aflate n executarea

pedepselor privative de libertate de a avea accesla informaiile de interes public nu poate fingrdit, acesta realizndu-se n condiiile legii.Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor areobligaia de a lua toate msurile necesare pentruasigurarea respectrii acestui drept (art. 41 alin.3 din Legea nr. 275/2006).

Dreptul la informaie al condamnailorse realizeaz i prin publicaii, emisiuniradiofonice i televizate sau prin orice altemijloace autorizate de administraia

penitenciarului (art. 41 alin. 4 din Legea nr.275/2006).

Acest drept este asigurat, potrivit legii,n mod corespunztor, i celor reinui sauarestai preventiv.

The right to information contains: theright of the person to be informed in time andcorrectly on measures taken by public authorities;free access to sources of political, scientific and

technical, social, cultural, sportive, information,etc; the possibility to reception personally and in anormal manner radio and television shows; theliability of public authorities to create juridicalconditions for free and ample diffusion of anykind of information15.

In art. 31 par. 4 of the Constitution it ismentioned that the means of mass information are

public and private; these are obliged to ensurecorrect information of public opinion.

Also, it must be mentioned the right to

antenna, the fact that public services of radio andtelevision are autonomous and that these mustensure to the main social and political groups theexercitation of the right to antenna (art. 31 par. 5from the Constitution).

This right is granted by the autonomouscharacter of the public services of radio andtelevision.

In the same time, in art. 41 par. 1 and 2from Law no. 275/2006 regarding the executionof punishments and measures disposed by judicial

organs during the penal suit16it is mentioned thatthe right of the persons from the execution of the

punishments privative of freedom, to have accessto information of public interest cannot beenclosed, this begin realised in the conditions ofthe law. The National Administration ofPenitentiaries has the liability to take all measuresnecessary to ensure the observance of this right(art. 41 par. 3 from Law no. 275/2006).

The convicts right of information it isrealized also by this publication, radio andtelevised emissions or though any other meansauthorised by the administration of the

penitentiary (art. 41 par. 4 from Law no.275/2006).

This right is ensured, according to law, ina correspondent manner, also to the ones

preventive retained or arrested.


6/6



12

Bibliografie

C. Brsan, Convenia european adrepturilor omului. Comentariu pe articole.

Drepturi i liberti, vol. I, Editura C.H. Beck,Bucureti, 2005G. Cohen-Jonathan, La problmatique

de ladhsion des Communauts europennes

la Convention europenne des droits de

lhomme, Etudes de droit des Communauts

europennes. Mlanges offerts a P.H. Teitgen,

Ed. Pedone, Paris, 1984G. Antoniu .a., Reforma legislaiei

penale, Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti,2003

M. Constantinescu .a., ConstituiaRomniei comentat i adnotat, RegiaautonomMonitorul Oficial, Bucureti, 1992

Bibliography

C. Brsan, European Convention of humanrights. Commentary on articles. Rights and

liberties, vol. I, C.H. Beck Publishing House,Bucharest, 2005G. Cohen-Jonathan, La problmatique de

ladhsion des Communauts europennes la

Convention europenne des droits de lhomme,

Etudes de droit des Communauts europennes.

Mlanges offerts a P.H. Teitgen, Ed. Pedone,Paris, 1984

G. Antoniu .a., Reform of penal legislation,Romanian Academy Publishing House,Bucharest, 2003

M. Constantinescu so on, Romaniasconstitution commented and noted, AutonomousRegia Official Gazette, Bucharest, 1992

1A se vedea C. Brsan, Convenia europeana drepturilor omului. Comentariu pe articole. Drepturii liberti, vol. I,Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2005, p. 741.2G. Cohen-Jonathan,La problmatique de ladhsion des Communauts europennes la Convention europenne desdroits de lhomme, Etudes de droit des Communauts europennes. Mlanges offerts a P.H. Teitgen, Ed. Pedone, Paris,1984, p.370.3A se vedea C.E.D.O., hotrrea din 22 mai 1990, n cauza Autronic contra Elveiei, parag. 47, 50 i 63. Menionm ctoatehotrrile i deciziile la care facem referire n aceastlucrare sunt accesibile pe site-ul C.E.D.O., www.echr.coe.int.4A se vedea C.E.D.O., hotrrea din 24 septembrie 1992, n cauza Herczegfalvy contra Austriei,parag. 9-13, 19-23, 93-94.5M. Of. nr. 589 din 8 august 2002, completatprin Legea nr. 600/2004 (M.Of. nr. 1228 din 21 decembrie 2004).6A se vedea C.E.D.O., hotrrea din 26 aprilie 1979, n cauza Sunday Times contra Marii Britanii, parag. 66-68. n acestsens a se vedea i: C. Brsan, op. cit.,p. 743; G. Antoniu .a.,Reforma legislaiei penale, Editura Academiei Romne,Bucureti, 2003, p. 314.7A se vedea M. Constantinescu .a., Constituia Romniei comentati adnotat, Regia autonomMonitorul Oficial,Bucureti, 1992, p. 81.8M.Of. nr. 627 din 20 iulie 2006.9 To be seen C. Brsan,European Convention of human rights. Commentary on articles. Rights and liberties, vol. I, C.H.Beck Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 741.10 G. Cohen-Jonathan,La problmatique de ladhsion des Communauts europennes la Convention europenne desdroits de lhomme, Etudes de droit des Communauts europennes. Mlanges offerts a P.H. Teitgen, Ed. Pedone, Paris,1984, p.370.11 To be seen E.C.H.R., decision from 22ndMay1990, in the trial Autronic against Switzerland, paragraph 47, 50 i 63. Wemention that all decisions and resolutions mentioned in this paper are accessible on E.C.H.R. site, www.echr.coe.int.12 To be seen E.C.H.R., decision from 24 September 1992, in the trial Herczegfalvy against Austria,paragraph 9-13, 19-23, 93-94.13 Official Gazette no. 589 from 8 August 2002, completed by Law no. 600/2004 (M.Of. no. 1228 from 21 December2004).14 To be seen E.C.H.R decision from 26 April 1979, in the case Sunday Times against Great Britain, paragraph. 66-68. Inthis respect, to be seen also: C. Brsan, op. cit.,p. 743; G. Antoniu .a.,Reform of penal legislation, Romanian AcademyPublishing House, Bucharest, 2003, p. 314.15 To be seen M. Constantinescu so on,Romanias constitution commented and noted, Autonomous Regia OfficialGazette, Bucharest, 1992, p. 81.16 M.Of. no. 627 from 20 July 2006.

Documents

Dreptul de Informare