issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 287 (2020)  
13.10.2020  
The withdrawal of a journalist’s accreditation to consult the Securitate archives  
did not breach the Convention  
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Gafiuc v. Romania (application no. 59174/13) the  
European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  
The case concerned the withdrawal of the accreditation granted to a journalist to study the archives  
of the Securitate in order to conduct research into sports activities under the communist regime. In  
June and July 2009 the journalist published several articles in which he disclosed information about  
certain well-known sports figures.  
The Court noted that the obligation on the applicant to protect the personal data held by the public  
authorities had been foreseeable, and that the withdrawal of accreditation in the event of failure to  
comply with the strictly scientific use of the documents had been provided for in the regulations of  
the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (CNSAS).  
The Court reiterated that the freedom of expression secured by Article 10 was not unlimited. It could  
be restricted in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others.  
Thus, the Court considered it reasonable and legitimate for the CNSAS to have ruled that the  
applicant’s failure to comply with his legal obligations had irremediably compromised the  
relationship of trust that ought to exist between that institution and the persons who were granted  
authorisation to consult its files. In the Court’s view, the withdrawal of accreditation had not been  
disproportionate.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Justin Paul Gafiuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in  
Bucharest. At the relevant time, Mr Gafiuc was a sports journalist with the newspaper Gazeta  
Sporturilor. The case concerns the withdrawal of the accreditation granted to him to study the  
archives of the Securitate in order to conduct research into sports activities under the communist  
regime.  
In 2005 the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (“the CNSAS”) authorised Mr Gafiuc  
to access its archives as a researcher for the purpose of studying sport in Romania during the  
communist era. In June and July 2009 Mr Gafiuc published six articles, in which he disclosed  
information about certain well-known sports figures.  
On 21 July 2009 the management board of the CNSAS withdrew the applicant’s accreditation, on the  
grounds that in some of the articles Mr Gafiuc had failed to comply with the legal obligation to  
protect the private and family life of the persons referred to in Securitate documents. Mr Gafiuc  
requested the board to reconsider its decision, without success.  
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,  
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges  
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final  
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.  
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.  
On 5 October 2009 Mr Gafiuc brought an administrative action in the Court of Appeal against the  
CNSAS’s decision. The court dismissed the application as being unfounded and held that Mr Gafiuc  
had failed to comply with his obligations under Article 28 § 3 of Government Emergency Ordinance  
no. 24/2008 on citizens’ access to their personal files and the disclosure (deconspirarea) of  
Securitate documents, and under Rule 39 §§ 1, 2, 5 and 7 of the CNSAS Rules. Mr Gafiuc appealed  
against that judgment.  
In a final judgment of 14 March 2013 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It confirmed  
that the summary records contested by Mr Gafiuc constituted administrative acts, that Mr Gafiuc  
had not duly protected the private and family life of the persons referred to in the Securitate files  
and that the decision to withdraw his accreditation had a legal basis in the general provisions of Law  
no. 677/2001.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Gafiuc alleged that the withdrawal of the  
accreditation enabling him to access the CNSAS archives had constituted an infringement of his  
Convention rights.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 September 2013.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), President,  
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),  
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Romania),  
Branko Lubarda (Serbia),  
Carlo Ranzoni (Liechtenstein),  
Georges Ravarani (Luxembourg),  
Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),  
and also Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 10  
The Court noted that it was clear from the CNSAS’s summary record of 21 July 2009 and the Court of  
Appeal’s judgment of 20 September 2011 that the decision to withdraw the accreditation had been  
based on Article 28 §§ 1 and 3 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 24/2008 and on Rule  
39 §§ 1, 2, 5 and 7 of the CNSAS Rules. Both the management board of the CNSAS and the High  
Court had also pointed out that the applicant had breached the provisions of General Law  
no. 667/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. The  
Court noted that the provisions in the Government Emergency Ordinance and the CNSAS Rules  
imposed an obligation on individuals who were granted authorisation to access the Securitate  
archives to protect the private and family life of persons who had been persecuted by the State  
security bodies, in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 667/2001. The CNSAS regulations also  
provided for the withdrawal of accreditation from persons who used the documents made available  
to them for purposes that were not strictly scientific. Law no. 667/2001 ensured general protection  
of all the personal data held by the State authorities.  
The Court saw no reason to call into question the findings of the domestic courts. In addition, it  
noted that section 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of Law no. 677/2001 indicated that personal data could only be  
processed with the express and unambiguous consent of the person concerned.  
2
In consequence, the Court considered that the obligation on the applicant to ensure protection of  
the personal data held by the public authorities had been foreseeable and that the withdrawal of  
accreditation in the event of failure to comply with the instruction on strictly scientific use had been  
provided for in the CNSAS Rules.  
The Court concluded that the interference had been “prescribed by law”.  
With regard to the aim of the interference, the Court noted that the applicant in the present case  
had requested access to the Securitate archives in order to gather information for the purpose of  
historical research. The documents studied contained information about individuals who had been  
placed under surveillance by the political police or who had collaborated with it. The Court  
considered it reasonable for a public authority with responsibility for managing files containing  
information about private individuals to provide guarantees in its regulations, in order to protect the  
fundamental rights of those individuals. Furthermore, Law no. 677/2001 protected individuals with  
regard to the processing and free movement of personal data.  
Accordingly, in view of the legal obligation on all public authorities to protect the personal data held  
by them, the Court considered that the Government were entitled to invoke the legitimate aim of  
the protection of the rights of others, although the persons concerned had not themselves lodged  
complaints.  
With regard to the necessity of the interference, the Court noted that the applicant had disclosed in  
press articles material about individuals who had collaborated with the political police by providing  
information about various sports figures. The material disclosed to the public described actions  
relating to the private sphere or the moral integrity of those persons. Moreover, the applicant had  
named the individuals in question. The information did not relate to athletic performance, had not  
been made public by the persons concerned, and was not otherwise accessible to the public, who  
had no means of verifying its accuracy. Those persons were entitled to expect, both from the  
authorities and from the applicant who had been granted access to the information, protection of  
their right to respect for their private life.  
The Court reiterated that the freedom of expression secured by Article 10 was not unlimited. It could  
be restricted in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others.  
In the present case, the applicant had chosen not to carry out an academic study of the information  
obtained from the Securitate archives, but to disclose it in “raw” form, without assessing its  
relevance in the light of the declared aim of his research: sport in Romania under the communist  
regime. Rather than filtering this information, he had revealed to the public aspects of the private  
life of sports figures, information that could in no way contribute to a debate of public interest.  
The applicant had been able to apply to the national courts to challenge the withdrawal of his  
accreditation. Those courts had found that he had breached his obligation to protect the private life  
of the persons persecuted by the Securitate and that he had departed from the aim of the research  
for which accreditation had been granted. The consequence of the applicant’s failure to comply with  
his legal obligations had been the withdrawal of his accreditation. The Court noted, however, that  
this had not prevented him from continuing to work as a journalist.  
Thus, the Court considered it reasonable and legitimate for the CNSAS to have ruled that the  
applicant’s failure to comply with his legal obligations had irremediably compromised the  
relationship of trust that ought to exist between that institution and the persons who were granted  
authorisation to consult its files. In the Court’s view, the withdrawal of accreditation had not been  
disproportionate.  
The Court considered that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had  
been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that the authorities had struck a fair balance  
between the competing interests, thus acting within their margin of appreciation.  
3
It followed that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.  
The judgment is available only in French.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,  
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive  
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHR_CEDH.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member  
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.  
4