Press
Freedom in Romania
Cases
of harrassement on journalists between 1999 and 2000
The following cases of harassment on journalists were monitored between August 1999 and December 2000, under the “Freedom of Expression – FreeEx” Program developed by the Media Monitoring Agency – Academia Catavencu. The mission of the FreeEx Program is to counter violations of journalists’ right to free expression. Methods used: monitoring the attempts to intimidate or punish journalists, assisting them and advocate for media laws changing.
Donors
Freedom House, through the ProMedia program of USAID
Foundation for
an Open Society – Romania
World Bank Romania
I. LAWSUITS
1.
RADU SARBU vs. MARIUS DRAGHICI (“ADEVARUL”)
2. BADEA STANESCU vs. MARIUS DRAGHICI (“ADEVARUL”)
3. PETRE ROMAN vs. CRISTIAN TUDOR POPESCU (“ADEVARUL”)
4. TACHE VIOREL vs. GABRIELA STEFAN and "ADEVARUL"
5. PETRE BADEA vs. FELIX RACHE, SORIN OZON and “ACADEMIA
CATAVENCU”
6. VIAN BOBOCEA vs. MARIUS STOIANOVICI and "BUNA ZIUA
BRASOV"
7. ELENA POP BLAGA vs. LILIANA SIME ("CRISANA")
8. GREGORIAN BIVOLARU and NICOLAE CATRINA vs. TOMA ROMAN (“FLACARA”)
9. VASILE BERCI vs. NICOLAE IUGA (“JURNALUL DE SIGHET”)
10. GHEORGHE MOCUTA vs. OCTAVIAN ANDRONIC, ADRIAN HALPERT
and VALENTIN ZASCHIEVICI (“LIBERTATEA”)
11. STEFAN ROTEA-AFRIM vs. MIHAI BARBU (“MATINAL”)
12. MIHAI VIOREL BONEA vs. MIHAI BARBU (“MATINAL”)
13. GRIGORE PATRUICA vs. MIHAI BARBU and IULIA FAGAS (“MATINAL”)
14. GEORGESCU vs. CECILIA SIBISAN and “MATINAL”
15. VALENTIN CODAU vs. ADRIAN SORODOC (“MONITORUL DE
BOTOSANI”)
16. ADRIAN TOROPA vs. “MONITORUL DE BRASOV”
17. VASILE BRAN vs. ALEXANDRU GHIZA (“MONITORUL DE BRASOV”)
18. PETRICA HOGEA vs. CAMELIA CSIKI, GEORGETA TERCIU and CARMIAN
MARES (“MONITORUL DE BRASOV”)
19. LORETTE LUCA vs. GEORGETA TERCIU (“MONITORUL DE BRASOV”)
20. MIHAI PANZARIU vs. CLAUDIU RAUS (“MONITORUL DE IASI”)
21. STEFAN DAMIAN vs. GABRIEL GACHI and FANICA DUMITRASCU
(“MONITORUL DE IASI”)
22. RADU GROAPA vs. GEANINA BESLEAGA and "MONITORUL DE
NEAMT"
23. DORIN PRISCA vs. ION GIRNOD ("MONITORUL DE SIBIU")
24. CONSTANTIN SERBANICA vs. VALENTIN GHEORGHITA ("MONITORUL
DE VRANCEA") and S.C. NORD EST S.A.
25. TOMA TRIFON NICOLAE
26. MARIANA ROSCA and ELENA POP BLAGA vs. MARIANA GAVRILA
(“ZIUA DE ARDEAL”)
27. CORNEL TUSELEA vs. FLORIN CHIMA ("ZIUA DE CLUJ")
28.
BENONE PUSCA vs. SILVIU VASILACHE and "ZIUA DE GALATI-BRAILA"
II.OTHER HARASSEMENT
29.
VALENTIN DRAGAN (“CUGET LIBER”) and ION CIRLIG
30. RADU SARBU and CRISTIAN TUDOR POPESCU (“ADEVARUL”)
31. MIRCEA DINESCU and the SUPPORTERS of the GREATER ROMANIA
PARTY
32. LORENA BOROS and DORINA TATARAN - "GAZETA DE NORD
– VEST”
33. MARIAN TUDOR - "JURNALUL DE CONSTANTA"
34. MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS and the ROMANIAN PENAL CODE
35. PRO TV – BUZAU
36. DAN PAVEL and POLICEMEN FROM POLICE SECTION NO. 20
37. PROTEST of “ZIUA DE ARDEAL” and the ASSOCIATION
OF THE CLUJ MEDIA EDITORS
38. ADRIAN IONESCU (EUROPA NOVA TELEVISION) and the COUNTY
POLICE INSPECTORATE TIMIS
39. DANIEL TOMONI – “TRANSILVANIA JURNAL”
40.
MARCEL BOT ("ZIUA DE ARDEAL") and DANIEL MARIAN ("TRANSILVANIA
JURNAL")
vs. POLICEMEN FROM DEVA
41.
CONSTANTIN SIMIRAD and "ZIUA DE IASI"
I. LAWSUITS
1. RADU SARBU vs. MARIUS DRAGHICI ("ADEVARUL")
In November 1999 the journalist Marius Draghici published in the "Adevarul" daily newspaper a survey entitled "I.G.P., the Department for Control of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, confirms the disclosures of the Adevarul newspaper – Radu Sarbu is undergoing criminal investigation for his involvement in the Pollus Transilvania fraud". In the survey, the journalist Marius Draghici quoted a report of the General Police Inspectorate, signed by the brigade general Nicolae Berechet, which report stated: "The investigations and verifications carried out by IPJ Cluj, under the supervision of IGP – the Department for the Prevention of Economic and Financial Fraud, with respect to the withdrawal from the agricultural circuit of a surface of 34.7 hectares of arable land located in the area named "The Green Cap II" and the transfer of the same to SC Pollus SRL, evidenced that said land was withdrawn from the agricultural circuit by means of disqualification by an unauthorized institution, under-evaluated and transferred, in violation of the law, to the firm Pollus Transilvania, in exchange for a price of only ROL 11,000/square meter. The related transactions and operations were carried out with the direct intervention of the prefect Alexandru Farcas and the former general secretary of the Prefecture, Sorin Nas, with the involvement of the former general director of the State Ownership Fund, Radu Sarbu." Radu Sarbu, the president of the State Ownership Fund filed a civil action against Marius Draghici requesting a compensation of ROL two billion from the journalist. The lawsuit is currently pending with the Constitutional Court.
2. BADEA STANESCU vs. MARIUS DRAGHICI ("ADEVARUL")
In February 2000, the journalist Marius Draghici published in the “Adevarul” newspaper an inquiry entitled “Another area forbidden to the law. The Roma business men from Costesti-Argesi have been refusing to pay over one billion of taxes to the state for five years” which addressed a group of SRLs (Limited Liability Companies) located in Costesti-Arges, which deal with the purchase, sale and melting of non-ferrous metals. In said inquiry, Marius Draghici states with respect to the associates of the group of SRLs, that “they have been refusing, ever since 1995, to pay debts of over ROL 1 billion of fees and taxes”, such information being based upon the verifications conducted by Valeriu Minca, deputy director of the Financial Guard. As a result of the publication of the inquiry, Badea Stanescu, one of the associates, filed with the Costesti-Arges Court of Law, a criminal complaint against the journalist Marius Draghici, whom he accused of calumny, and consequently claimed compensation of ROL 500 million. The businessman Badea Stanescu also called Valeriu Minca before justice, on the same grounds of calumny. The decision of the Costesti-Arges Court of Law was in favor of the journalist, who was subsequently acquitted.
3. PETRE ROMAN vs. CRISTIAN TUDOR POPESCU ("ADEVARUL")
On March 22, 2000, the Bucharest Tribunal passed a final decision acquitting Cristian Tudor Popescu, chief-editor of "Adevarul" newspaper, in the slander suit filed by Petre Roman, head of the Democrat Party. In an article attached to a right of retort regarding the "Megapower" affair, the journalist Cristian Tudor Popescu wrote: "For what or for how much did you do it, Mr. Roman?", causing the filing of the criminal lawsuit. The magistrates of the Bucharest Tribunal considered that the question asked by Cristian Tudor Popescu cannot be qualified as slander, as the Criminal Code defines such crime as being either an assertion or a charge, and not a question.
4. TACHE VIOREL vs. GABRIELA STEFAN and "ADEVARUL"
On March 3, 1997, col.(r) Tache Viorel, former deputy chief in command of Military Camp 0215, currently a businessman, filed a criminal complaint with the Bucharest Sector 1 Court of Law, against journalist Gabriela Stefan of the "Adevarul" daily newspaper, for committing the crimes of slander and insult. In the same file spouses Marian and Doina Stancu, with whom col. Tache was involved in an old litigation, were accused of instigation and of being accessories to insult and calumny (An indictment drafted by the prosecutor from Bucharest Military Tribunal states that, in fact, spouses Marian and Doina Stancu are victims of col. Tache Viorel.) "Adevarul" was also called before justice as a responsible party on a civil level, Tache Viorel claiming the payment of ROL 3 billion as moral damages and USD 851,100 as trade damages. The cause of this trial was a series of investigations published by "Adevarul", setting forth the problems that Tache Viorel and his wife, Tache Virginia, a mayor with Internal Affairs Ministry, have had with various state authorities, the lawsuits involving the two and the Stancu family, as well as the decisions already rendered in by the court with respect to Tache Viorel. The articles were written on the basis of existing documents and the investigations specific to journalistic inquiry. Previously, concomitantly with and subsequently to the publication of the articles in "Adevarul", the courts and the District Attorney’s Office confirmed the facts those articles made reference to. Taking all of these into account, the Bucharest Sector 1 Court of Law, presided by Judge Elena Luminita Afrasinei has ruled in favor of "Adevarul". Also, the Bucharest Tribunal, by magistrates Tatiana Zorila, Tiberiu Barbacioriu and Marinela Popa, totally maintained the resolution of the Court of Law, and therefore the same has remained final.
5. PETRE BADEA vs. FELIX RACHE, SORIN OZON and "ACADEMIA CATAVENCU"
Petre Badea, businessman and main shareholder of S.C. Aedificia Carpati S.A., has sued Felix Rache and Sorin Ozon investigative journalists with the “Academia Catavencu” weekly newspaper, as well as “Academia Catavencu”, considering himself materially and morally damaged by the revealing facts published in the above mentioned magazine. Petre Badea asked the Court, on the basis of art. 998, 999, 1000 of the Civil Code, to render a decision in order to force the two journalists and the “Academia Catavencu” magazine to pay ROL 1 billion as damages.On January 6, 2000, at the first hearing, the Court convicted the journalists Felix Rache and Sorin Ozon, as well as “Academia Catavencu” to the payment of ROL 100 million as damages, plus court expenses. We hereby quote from the grounds of the decision: "The defendants, although duly subpoenaed, failed to appear in Court and present any defense". In fact, the Court did not take into account the absence of said procedure as far as the subpoenaing of “Academia Catavencu” and the two journalists is concerned. Moreover, before the first hearing took place, counselor Doru Costea filed a request for the postponement of the case so that the defense formalities may be accomplished. The court failed to consider this request, about which request the counselor claimed that it disappeared from the file. Ever since the first hearing (which case has no precedent in the post-December history of Romanian justice), although the journalists and the publication they work for had no defense, the court, by Mrs. C. Marinescu, magistrate, the president of the 5th Civil and Administrative Section of the Bucharest Tribunal, ruled in favor of plaintiff Petre Badea. At the same time, the judgment was passed without Petre Badea’s having to prove the consequences and the extent of the damages claimed. The only procedure used in order to establish the extent of the damages is revealed by the Tribunal in the following sentence: "the mere lecture of the article clearly demonstrates the moral prejudice that was inflicted upon the plaintiff Petre Badea." The Court has therefore inferred that the plaintiff's public image was damaged and it set the amount of damages to be paid to ROL 100 million. The Court substantiated its decision as follows: "Any person who reads the article in question, leaving aside the suburban language, gets the impression that the plaintiff is a corrupt individual, a person with no character who exclusively carries out illegal business". The Court considered that "the defendants have depicted the plaintiff in the article entitled <<Petre Badea from Aedificia Carpati is the new Paunescu of Constantinescu's regime>> as a corrupt person, with no character, whose sole interest lays in his own gains." Up to the present moment, no court in Romania ever indicted journalists and publications upon the first hearing. Normally, the court should have been under the obligation to grant another term so that the journalists may use their defense rights. The accused party filed for recourse, and the case is to be re-judged with the Bucharest Tribunal.
6. VIAN BOBOCEA vs. MARIUS STOIANOVICI and "BUNA ZIUA BRASOV"
At the beginning of 1997, after president Emil Constantinescu, through a statement that he released, invited all newspapers to reveal the corruption cases they were aware of, the "Buna Ziua Brasov" daily newspaper initiated a campaign denominated the "Corruption Files". As a consequence, for several months, an unresolved corruption case was presented in each number of the newspaper. During said campaign, several employees of SC Postavarul forwarded to the newspaper as well as to the county’s anti-corruption commission an open letter, calling attention on the abuses and irregularities taking place in the company. Due to the fact that this letter was published, the company's manager, Vian Bobocea, sued the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Marius Stoianovici, accusing him of slander. The trial has lasted for two years, and the newspaper "Buna Ziua Brasov" and the journalist Marius Stoianovici lost the case both in the first instance and in recourse. For the simple reason that the newspaper the editorial office of which was run by him has published an open letter, Marius Stoianovici was forced to pay to the manager of SC Postavarul Panificatie SA, Vian Bobocea, the amount of ROL 2,000,000 as moral damages and ROL 500,000 as a criminal fine.
7. ELENA POP BLAGA vs. LILIANA SIME ("CRISANA")
In the “Crisana” daily newspaper of September 12, 1998, journalist Liliana Sime published an article named "Two judges are accused of abuse and accepting bribe. Against them a complaint has been filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office from the Oradea Court of Appeals" and two photos showing magistrates Mariana Rosca and Elena Pop Blaga of the Bihor Tribunal. As a consequence, Elena Pop Blaga accused Liliana Sime of committing the crimes of false denunciation, theft, qualified theft, stealing and destruction of documents. The last three charges refer to the photos published with the article in discussion. The journalist Liliana Sime proved that the photographs had not been stolen but taken from the newspaper's archives. By means of a final resolution, the Sibiu Court of Law convicted Liliana Sime to the payment of ROL 5 million as a criminal fine and ROL 75 million as moral damages. The case is now pending with the Supreme Court of Justice, as the General District Attorney approved the action for cancellation filed by the journalist.
8. GREGORIAN BIVOLARU and NICOLAE CATRINA vs. TOMA ROMAN ("FLACARA')
The Guru Gregorian Bivolaru and Nicolae Catrina, the president of the Movement for Spiritual Integration into the Absolute, subpoenaed the journalist Toma Roman at the Sector 1 Court of Law. The two had this reaction as a result of the article "Romania – the Paradise of the sexes. Bivolaru's erotic massages", published in the “Flacara” monthly publication of June 2000 under the signature of Toma Roman. The assaulted party reproaches to the journalist the fact that the articles referred to the profits obtained as a result of allegedly spiritual actions. According to criminal file 15771 lodged with the Sector 1 Court of Law, Gregorian Bivolaru and Nicolae Catrina claim compensation in a value of ROL two billion.
9. VASILE BERCI vs. NICOLAE IUGA ("JURNALUL DE SIGHET")
Last year, Vasile Berci, PNTCD deputy for Maramures county, sued Nicolae Iuga, chief-editor of “Jurnalul de Sighet”, accusing him of committing slander. The criminal complaint came in response to the fact that Nicolae Iuga published a piece of news according to which the PNTCD deputy in question bought an apartment in Bucharest. The deputy Vasile Berci lost the case in first instance (file no. 1957/1999) on December 29, 1999 but, unsatisfied of the decision, he filed for recourse. The County Tribunal of Maramures maintained the first instance decision (file nr. 225/2000), thus rendering the sentence final and irrevocable.
10. GHEORGHE MOCUTA vs. OCTAVIAN ANDRONIC, ADRIAN HALPERT and VALENTIN ZASCHIEVICI ("LIBERTATEA")
On May 18, 2000, Criminal Department II of the Bucharest Sector 1 Court of Law was supposed to witness a new hearing in the calumny lawsuit filed by Gheorghe Mocuta, Ministry of Justice Secretary of State, against journalists Octavian Andronic, Adrian Halpert and Valentin Zaschievici. The reason for which Gheorghe Mocuta filed criminal action against the three journalists is an interview given to the daily newspaper "Libertatea" by Dinu Stefan, a.k.a. Fane Capatana, which interview made the plaintiff feel insulted. In parallel, Gheorghe Mocuta also sued Fane Capatana.On the May 18, 2000 term, Fane Capatana announced that the would submit evidence to support his statements given in the interview, which announcement resulted in a great number of journalists expressing their desire to attend the lawsuit. The journalists' attendance of the lawsuit was, however, prevented by the president of the court panel, who banned the access of the public and the media in the courtroom. Finally, due to procedure-related reasons, the disclosures announced by Fane Capatana were postponed. No new pieces of information have as yet appeared with respect to the two lawsuits.
11. STEFAN ROTEA-AFRIM vs. MIHAI BARBU ("MATINAL")
The issue released on January 9- 10, 1999 of the "Matinal" daily newspaper of Petrosani, under the signature C.C., published the article "Fane Macelaru and Buta Sandu gave a ROL 200 million cannon with Compensation Orders. Due to forged compensation orders, COMTIM has lost ROL 200 million." The article was based upon a note of the Timis Police Inspectorate and covered the deed committed by two citizens from Petrosani, Buta Sandu and Stefan Rotea-Afrim (also known in the area as Fane the Butcher), who tried to place two forged compensation orders with COMTIM SA Timisoara. By Address 220607/9.04.1999, the Timis County Police Inspectorate confirmed to the "Matinal" daily newspaper the fact that the two are the object of file P.1845/30.12.1998 for money counterfeit and forgery. As a result of the publication of the above-mentioned article, Stefan Rotea-Afrim called chief editor Mihai Barbu before justice on grounds of calumny, demanding compensation of ROL 500 million. The Petrosani Court of Law subsequently sanctioned the journalist Mihai Barbu with an administrative fine of ROL 500,000. Unsatisfied with the Petrosani court judgment, Stefan Rotea-Afrim filed for recourse and succeeded, with the approval of the Supreme Court of Justice, to relocate the judgment of the case to the Arad Tribunal, which ultimately maintained the decision given by the Petrosani Court of Law.
12. MIHAI VIOREL BONEA vs. MIHAI BARBU ("MATINAL")
The Petrosani businessman Mihai Viorel Bonea, one of the former close friends of Miron Cozma, filed a complaint against Mihai Barbu, chief editor of the “Matinal” newspaper, invoking a series of articles which incriminated him, with journalistic proof, of having committed certain abuses. The lawsuit was first judged at the Petrosani Court of Law, which ruled in favor of the journalist. Unhappy with the Court’s resolution, Mihai Viorel Bonea filed for recourse. The file was relocated to the Hunedoara County Tribunal, which convicted the chief-editor of "Matinal" to the payment of an administrative fine of ROL 500,000.
13. GRIGORE PATRUICA vs. MIHAI BARBU and IULIA FAGAS ("MATINAL")
Mihai Barbu and Iulia Fagas of the Petrosani newspaper “Matinal” published a series of articles revealing the fraud placed at the basis of a pyramid game “Bilete de papagal”, initiated by the businessman Grigore Patruica in the period of glory of the “Caritas”-type businesses. Suspected in the articles signed by the two journalists of being an accessory to fraud, Grigore Patruica's stepson, Sergiu Georgescu, Attorney-at-Law called the two journalists before justice, requesting the Baliesti Court of Law for their conviction for calumny and moral damages amounting to ROL 100 million (US 56,000). Sergiu Georgescu was also mentioned in the articles as being associated to the fraud. The Bailesti Court of Law and subsequently the Dolj County Tribunal (south-west area of Romania), settled the case by acquitting the journalists.
14. GEORGESCU vs. CECILIA SIBISAN and "MATINAL"
In an article published in the "Matinal" daily newspaper from Petrosani, the journalist Cecilia Sibisan set forth an accusation made by a PRM local counselor in the meeting of Vulcan Local Council of October 30, 1997. The accusation made by the PRM counselor was as follows: "on Saturday, the October the 25th, the manager of the Vulcan market, Mrs. Georgescu, was caught taking bribe. " For publishing this allegation, Cecilia Sibisan was called before justice in a criminal lawsuit, and the local counselor refused to admit to the allegation made with respect to the market’s administrator. Consequently, by Criminal Decision no. 1334/1998, the County Tribunal of Hunedoara – Deva convicted journalist Cecilia Sibisan, for slander, to the payment of a criminal fine of ROL 350. Also, the civil responsible party, the board of the Petrosani "Matinal" daily newspaper, was forced to pay moral damages of ROL one million. The decision was deemed final.
15. VALENTIN CODAU vs. ADRIAN SORODOC ("MONITORUL DE BOTOSANI")
On February 23, 2000, journalist Adrian Sorondoc published in the pages of the “Monitorul de Botosani” an article entitled “A convict suffering from AIDS cut himself with a razor during the trial”, from which article we quote: “Yesterday morning, at the Botosani Tribunal, a convict on trial for insulting behavior cut his throat and his hands with a shaving razor during the trial. Convict Valentin Codau is 29 and he is a recidivist, well-known for his display of very violent behavior”. Valentin Codau opened with the Botosani Court of Law a criminal action against journalist Adrian Sorondoc, to whom he also sent a threatening letter. We quote from said letter: “Do you not believe that you might end up like a dog? I believe you are too naïve to realize the risk you are likely to encounter”. A panel of the Botosani Court of Law, chaired by magistrate Veronica Zbant, convicted Adrian Sorondoc to payment of a criminal fine of ROL 500,000, as well as payment of ROL 10 million representing moral damages. The court’s grounds specify that the article, although depicting real facts, damaged the convict’s honor as a result of its being published. The journalist was allowed to file for an appeal, and in November 2000 the Botosani Tribunal annulled the Court’s sentence. The Supreme Court of Justice also admitted an application filed by Valentin Codau and forwarded the file to the Dorohoi Court of Law.
16. ADRIAN TOROPA vs. "MONITORUL DE BRASOV"
At the beginning of year 1999, the president of the Brasov County Council, Adrian Toropa, sued all editorial office of “Monitorul de Brasov”, from the director to the editorial office secretary, although the latter was solely responsible for technical issues related to the editing of the daily newspaper. Adrian Toropa filed the complaint due to the fact that several statements of former managers of SC POIANA BRASOV SA were quoted, which statements accused Adrian Toropa of intercession. For simply quoting such statements, the journalists were sued for slander; it was also requested that the journalists in question may no longer use their civil rights, that all their properties should be confiscated and that they should pay an amount of ROL 5 billion as damages. After a while, Adrian Toropa dropped the charges due, to a great extent, to the publicity related to the litigation.
17. VASILE BRAN vs. ALEXANDRU GHIZA ("MONITORUL DE BRASOV")
Democrat party deputy Vasile Bran sued the editor-in-chief of the “Monitorul de Brasov” daily, Alexandru Ghiza, because, in a chart attached to the article "The Brasov Mafia" the name of the deputy appeared related to the names of other individuals involved in illicit business. There exist documents (even a General Public Prosecutor's Charge) according to which deputy Vasile Bran had influenced certain resolutions made by the General Meeting of the Shareholders of Bod Sugar Factory. The Brasov Court of Law ruled in favor of editor-in-chief Alexandru Ghiza.
18. PETRICA HOGEA vs. CAMELIA CSIKI, GEORGETA TERCIU and CARMINA MARES ("MONITORUL DE BRASOV")
Camelia Csiki, Georgeta Terciu and Carmina Mares, journalists with the “Monitorul de Brasov”, were sued by Petrica Hogea, one of the individuals involved in the privatization of the Cicoarea Section of the Bod Factory. Although the former prefect, Ioan Opris, was arrested as a result of the articles published by the three journalists and the investigation bodies initiated the criminal investigation of the perpetrators, Petriga Hogea continues his judiciary action. At present the case is pending with the Brasov Court of Law. The prosecution attorney presented an address of the General Prosecutor’s Office, which sets forth that criminal pursuit against Petrica Hogea was terminated.
19. LORETTE LUCA vs. GEORGETA TERCIU ("MONITORUL DE BRASOV")
Lawyer Lorette Luca, one of the defenders of the defendants sent before justice as a result of the street scandal occurred in the Brasov underworld at the end of September 1999, filed on November 24, 1999 with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Brasov Court of Law a criminal complaint against Georgeta Terciu, a journalist with the “Monitorul de Brasov”. The grounds are as follows: an article published under the signature of Georgeta Terciu on November 16, 1999, which article set forth a report regarding the lawsuit in which the lawyer was pleading, was accompanied by a photograph which also included Lorette Luca. In her complaint, the plaintiff accused that her right to image was violated, as well as art. 2 and 39 of the audiovisual Law. For the two “violations”, Lorette Luca requested the editor moral damages in a value of ROL 100,000,000. We must specify, for convenience’s sake, that the journalist had not taken the picture herself and was not responsible for the publication of the same; she is exclusively responsible for the content of the article, which content was not contested by the plaintiff. The audiovisual Law does not refer to the photograph. In any case, the photo-reporter of the “Monitorul de Brasov” daily newspaper had the approval of the Court in order to take general snapshots of the courtroom, and that is exactly what was accomplished. In consideration of all of this information, the Brasov Police recommended that the Public Prosecutor’s Office should not commence criminal pursuit.
20. MIHAI PANZARIU vs. CLAUDIU RAUS ("MONITORUL DE IASI")
Claudiu Raus, editor with the "Monitorul de Iasi", was convicted by the Iasi Court of Law to the payment of ROL 20 million as moral damages, owed to the former chief of the general Customs’ Department, Mihai Panzariu, who had sued the former for slander in the press. On May 9, 1998, the "Monitorul de Iasi" daily newspaper took over, word for word, a piece of news released by national press agency Mediafax: "The Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office decided to restart investigation in the case of Mihai Panzariu, former chief of the General Customs’ Department. (...) A 1996 report of the Court of Accounts mentioned that under Panzariu’s “cover” smuggling business was carried out which cost the Romanian state several billion of ROL." On May 11, 1998, "Monitorul de Iasi" republished the Mediafax news, again word for word, only this time without mentioning the source therefor, together with an analysis-article on the "Tigareta II" business, signed by Claudiu Raus, which article did not mention Mihai Panzariu’s name at all. In June 1998, a panel of judges of the Iasi Court of Law, chaired by judge Oana Lefter, ruled against Claudiu Raus, with the above-mentioned sentence. Both parties filed for recourse, however after the judging of such recourse the conviction remained unchanged.
21. STEFAN DAMIAN vs. GABRIEL GACHI and FANICA DUMITRASCU ("MONITORUL DE IASI")
Gabriel Gachi and Fanica Dumitrascu, journalists with the “Monitorul de Iasi”, were convicted by the Iasi Court of Law to payment of a criminal fine, as well as to the obligation to pay civil damages in an insult lawsuit filed by municipal counselor Stefan Damian and judged by judge Dragos Serbanescu. The insult consisted in the fact that, in an article in which they scored the performance of each of the Iasi counselors, Stefan Damian got a "0 grade" for his unjustified absence from one of the meetings of the Local Council. The article was entitled "The Council of Shame" and the plaintiff built his case around the connection that could have been made between his name and the title of the article. The decision of the Iasi Court of Law remained the same even after the recourse filed by the defendants. The Minister of Justice, Valeriu Stoica, approved the latter’s application for the relocation of the litigation at the Supreme Court of Justice.
22. RADU GROAPA vs. GEANINA BESLEAGA and "MONITORUL DE NEAMT"
Journalist Besteleaga Gianina was called before justice for slander (file no. 10083/1997- the Piatra Neamt Court of Law) by Radu Groapa for an article published in the “Monitorul de Neamt” on November 7, 1997, and entitled "Employer Groapa has beaten up his neighbor".
The judge, by means of criminal decision no. 562/08.04.1998, resolved to convict the defendant to the payment of a criminal fine of ROL 150,000 for perpetrating the crime of slander stipulated by art. 206 of the Penal Code. The judge also partially admitted the civil action filed by Radu Groapa and it convicted the defendant together with the civil responsible party to the payment of ROL 500,000 as moral damages. Geanina Besleaga was also convicted to the payment of ROL 50,000 as court expenses in favor of the state. During the recourse period, employer Radu Groapa dropped his charges.
23. DORIN PRISCA vs. ION GIRNOD ("MONITORUL DE SIBIU")
On September 7, 1999, businessman Dorin Prisca, filed with the Medias Court of Law a criminal complaint against Ion Girnod, journalist with the "Monitorul de Sibiu", accusing him of perpetrating the crime of press slander. Dorin Prisca requested that the Court should render a decision of criminal conviction against the journalist, and to force the same to the payment of moral damages of ROL 100,000,000. The article in discussion, entitled "Panmed S.A. is struggling to recover debts of half a billion", was published in "Monitorul de Sibiu" on July 30, 1999 and it refers to local wheat business. In the criminal complaint filed with the Medias Court of Law, Dorin Prisca stated: "Even if the Constitution of Romania regulates the right to freedom of speech, the same stipulates that such right is restricted, so that <<freedom of speech cannot prejudice the dignity, honor, private life of any person nor the right to such person’s own image.>> Compliance with the laws of the country, may they be deficient or incomplete, insures a certain social harmony and represents a social background, a space for the exercise of the freedom of speech." On December 22, 1999, the Court settled the complaint by convicting journalist Ion Girnod to the payment of a criminal fine of ROL 5 million, plus ROL 30 million as moral damages.
24. CONSTANTIN SERBANICA vs. VALENTIN GHEORGHITA ("MONITORUL DE VRANCEA") and S.C. NORD EST S.A.
On March 29, 1997, journalist Valentin Gheorghita signed on the front page of the “Monitorul de Vrancea” an article called "The discharge of Colonel Serbanica". As a consequence, colonel Constantin Sebanica addressed the Focsani Court of Law in order to request the article’s author to respond before justice. Journalist Valentin Gheorghita was accused of slander, and the I.J.O. sent an address stating that the injured party, i.e colonel Constantin Serbanica, had in fact been registered under another category of wages. The court has rendered the Criminal Sentence no. 1052/04.05.1999, acquitting journalist Valentin Gheorghita on the basis of the provisions of article 10, letter d of the Penal Procedure Code, however it forced the defendant, jointly with the civil responsible party, SC NORD EST SA IASI to pay ROL 15,000,000 as civil damages due to the injured party and ROL 600,000 as court expenses. Valentin Gheorghita was also convicted to the payment of ROL 200,000 as court expenses in favor of the state. After judging the recourse filed by the journalist, the Iasi Court of Law increased the amount of the civil damages to ROL 20 million. Valentin Gheorghita filed an action for cancellation with the General District Attorney, which action was rejected as being groundless.
Toma Trifon Nicolae, former manager of the newspaper "Drapelul" of Lugoj, became the target of an abuse of legal proceedings due to his investigative journalism activity. Over a period of 8 years 40 lawsuits that had been filed against him. Moreover, the Lugoj Court of Law convicted Toma Trifon Nicolae on criminal grounds twice without the same being given the chance to defend himself. Following one of these two lawsuits, Toma Trifon Nicolae was sentenced to 2 years in prison and arrested for a two month-period. The sentence on the basis of which the arrest was made was annulled by the Timisoara Court of Appeals, thus proving that the verdict was prejudiced. Interestingly enough, eight months after the pronouncement of the decision of the Timisoara Court of Appeals, the Lugoj Court of Law rejected an application filed by Toma Trifon Nicolae where the same requested, immediately following his arrest, the suspension of his sentence of 2 years of imprisonment. Pursuant to the lawsuits filed against him, journalist Toma Trifon Nicolae has so far appeared 120 appearances before the court, but none of the actions filed at the level of the Lugoj courts stood before the higher courts. At present Toma Trifon Nicolae is acquitted in all the criminal lawsuits that had been filed against him.
26. MARIANA ROSCA and ELENA POP BLAGA vs. MARIANA GAVRILA ("ZIUA DE ARDEAL")
In an article published in “Ziua” on May 17, 1998, called “Two judges in Oradea are accused of extending judgment terms and claiming money for their promptness”, Mariana Gavrila, journalist with the “Ziua de Ardeal” daily, drew attention upon certain claims filed with the Ministry of Justice. Said complains accused 2 magistrates with the Bihor Tribunal, namely Mariana Rosca and Elena Pop Blaga, of unjustified delay in delivering court verdicts. Moreover, the author of one of the complaints claimed that for a certain prompt verdict, the two judges asked for bribe in the amount of DM 20,000. Even though the journalist merely informed her readers about the content of said accusations, she was sued and ultimately convicted. On September 17,1999 a panel of judges of the Sibiu Court of Law, chaired by magistrate Cecilia Moraru, sentenced the journalist Mariana Gavrila to the payment of a criminal fine in the amount of ROL 5 million. The two magistrates also sued one of the authors of the memoranda addressed to the Ministry of Justice, but the Turnu Severin Court of Law ruled in favor of the latter. After her conviction Mariana Gavrila filed an action for cancellation which is currently still pending with the General District Attorney’s Office, and has not as yet been approved.
27. CORNEL TUSELEA vs. FLORIN CHIMA ("ZIUA DE CLUJ")
In April 1998, journalist Florin Chima published, on the basis of statements given by several citizens at the editorial office of the "Ziua de Cluj" publication, two articles setting forth the complaints submitted by said citizens with respect to the conduct of major Cornel Tuselea. Following the publication of the two articles, major Cornel Tuselea accused journalist Florin Chima of insult and calumny, before the Cluj-Napoca Court of Law (criminal file no. 5562/1999). Due to the fact that major Cornel Tuselea failed to sign the prior complaint filed with the court, the court ruled in favor of the journalist, and it is currently expected that the plaintiff should file for recourse.
28. BENONE PUSCA vs. SILVIU VASILACHE and "ZIUA DE GALATI-BRAILA"
In August 1998, journalist Silviu Vasilache published in the "Ziua de Galati-Braila" newspaper an article accusing Benone Pusca that the latter was holding the position of dean of the Galati DANUBIUS University without being awarded the academic title of lecturer, confirmed by the Ministry of Education. The journalist also claimed that Benone Pusca had used "illegal" methods in order to obtain the authorization for the operation of the Law School. Silviu Vasilache also stated that, on the basis of certificate FD no. 13656/10.04.1997, revolutionist Benone Pusca had obtained an exemption from the payment of wage tax both for the wage received in Galati and for the wage received in Bucharest, at the School for the Improvement of Local Public Administration Officers, where his employment card was registered.
Journalist Silviu Vasilache and three former colleagues of Benone Pusca, who made similar allegations with respect to the dean of the DANUBIUS University, were all called before justice. We would like to mention that the journalist’s involvement in this lawsuit, under the charge of slander (file no. 10757/1998 of the Galati Court of Law) was made in breach of the statute of limitations applicable in the case according to dispositions of Penal Code, after 9 months following the date the article was published. On November 15, 1999, the Galati Court of Law, by magistrate Cristina Postelnicu, rendered criminal Sentence no. 2689, convicting Silviu Vasilache to the payment of a criminal fine of ROL 2,500,000 for perpetrating the crime of slander. Also, the court convicted Silviu Vasilache and the "Ziua de Galati-Braila" newspaper - as civil responsible party - to the payment of ROL 1,500,000 as moral damages, plus ROL 140,000 as court expenses. As a consequence of the recourse filed by the journalist the case is currently being judged by the Galati Court. The District Attorney in charge with the case asks for an increase of the criminal fine from ROL 2,500,000 to ROL 10,000,000.
II.
OTHER HARASSEMENT 29.
VALENTIN DRAGAN (“CUGET LIBER”) AND ION CARLIG In
Constanta, on May 12, 2000, a journalist, during the course of carrying out
his job-related duties, was beaten up by policemen and was hospitalized, having
a broken leg. At the Pirates' Inn in Mamaia, the newly appointed general Ion
Cirlig, the chief of the Constanta County Police Inspectorate, was celebrating
his recent promotion with his colleagues in civvies, Police services chiefs.
The photographer of a local newspaper (“Cuget Liber” – Poligraf)
was sent to take pictures that were to be published on the following day. He
was identified by the policemen who were not on duty and did not wear a uniform,
his respective ID was withheld and his camera was confiscated (which deed may
be criminally classified as theft, as long as the confiscators held no official
capacity and no minutes were drawn up.) Several
reporters of the daily newspaper, also accompanied by the chief editor, Dorin
Epure, subsequently came to the Pirates' Inn in an attempt to recover the camera.
While the chief editor was discussing with general Ion Cirlig (the general was
listening to the arguments while a subordinate of the same was irreverently
addressing chief editor Dorin Epure, “pushing him with his belly”,
as the latter himself stated), one of the reporters, Valentin Dragan, tried
to take pictures with another camera. At that particular moment, according to
the attending journalists and drivers, four civilian policemen, including the
spokesperson, Marian Saragea, rushed upon Valentin Dragan, destroyed the camera
and broke the reporter's leg. This deed may be criminally classified as body
injury or serious body injury, depending upon the number of days of medical
care. When the scandal began, chief editor Dorin Epure stormed to the place
where the same was going on, after ceasing his discussion with general Cirlig.
The latter, who, according to the "Cuget Liber" journalists, could
not possibly have missed the event, did not, however, intervene. With
a broken leg, Valentin Dragan was rushed to the County Hospital where the doctors
acknowledged his perineum fracture, and a complicated surgery was performed,
which surgery immobilized the reporter for a few weeks.The second day the media
had been invited to the officers' mess, where the general was to toast his promotion.
The Constanta journalists protested in front of the Police and subsequently
in front of the Prefecture. In the afternoon, at the press conference which
the Minister of Justice, Valeriu Stoica (who was conducting his electoral tour
at the time) held in Navodari, the journalists demanded the same to address
this extremely serious case. The Minister promised to have an investigation
committee from Bucharest sent there, so that the investigation should not be
handled by the Constanta prosecutors. General Cirlig stated that he regretted
the respective event, but he saw nothing and was not aware of what had happened.
He emphasized that fact that it was a private party and they were not asked
by reporters for permission to take pictures. Apparently, the spokesman, Marian
Saragea, the person whom Valentin Dragan had indicated as being the one who
blew the finishing stroke knew nothing either, due to the fact that he was not
on the location, as he was reporting to his superior. Moreover, the Constanta
policemen declared in a press conference that the journalist left the location
on his own two feet but due to the fact that the ground was uneven, he probably
stumbled.The journalist filed a penal complaint that he subsequently withdrew.
Apart from other organizations, the Journalists Protection Network offered legal
assistance and a new working place for the journalist in case it would have
been necessary. We do not know exactly what kind of pressures the policemen
subjected the journalist in order to have him withdraw the complaint, but we
can imagine all too well. 30.
RADU SARBU AND CRISTIAN TUDOR POPESCU (“ADEVARUL”) The
Media Monitoring Agency – Academia Catavencu hereby informs the Journalists’
Protection Network with respect to the conflict currently occurred between Radu
Sarbu, vice-president of PNTCD and president of the State Ownership Fund, and
Cristian Tudor Popescu, chief editor of the "Adevarul" daily newspaper.On
the occasion of a press conference organized by PNTCD in October 2000, vice-president
Radu Sarbu threatened that he shall request the National Audiovisual Council
to ban the appearance of Cristian Tudor Popescu, chief editor of “Adevarul”
newspaper, on any television station, during the period of the election campaign.
Radu Sarbu also specified the reason for such request: in a political show broadcasted
on the Romania 1 television program, Cristian Tudor Popescu allegedly asked
the president of SOF whether, in the event that the same should lose his immunity
after the elections, he was prepared to go to jail. 31.
MIRCEA DINESCU AND THE SUPPORTERS OF THE GREATER ROMANIA PARTY Not
even poets have enjoyed only a bohemian life. On November 2000, in Piatra Neamt,
Mircea Dinescu, poet and chief of the magazine entitled "Plai cu Boi",
was assaulted and cursed by a group formed of approximately 15 people. Mircea
Dinescu was coming out of the headquarters of a local television station where
he participated in a talk-show. We hereby present Mircea Dinescu’s statement:
"Upon exit, I came across a mob of hysterical, very aggressive people,
members of the Greater Romania party. They started hitting me, they tore up
my clothes. I had just talked on television about Vadim’s security forces,
and in fact the same were waiting at the entry of the televisions station, thus
confirming what I had stated on the air. They said awful curses; I have never
heard such curses all my life. I was lucky that the television station’s
security pulled me back. The Piatra Neamt mayor also showed up, and offered
me protection. The Mayor told me that the hysterical people’s leader was
Dumitru Badea, PRM Neamt senator, who was also a member of the Romanian Senate
Legal and Discipline Committee. Some member he is! The local people also told
me that this Badea person had been a Security colonel. My words exactly." 32.
LORENA BOROS AND DORINA TATARAN - “GAZETA DE NORD – VEST“ At
the end of September 1999, Lorena Boros and Dorina Tataran, journalists at the
daily “Gazeta de Nord-Vest”, were attacked and robbed during an investigation,
by the employees of the SC IMI SA Baia Mare, which company is under suspicion
of having won an auction in a questionable manner. According to the two journalists,
the Police, who arrived on the site with great delay, rather believed the story
of the IMI SA Baia Mare workers, who claimed that the journalist Lorena Boros
molested 12 workers. 33.
MARIAN TUDOR – “JURNALUL DE CONSTANTA” In
September 1999, Marian Tudor, chief of the Special Investigative Department
of the “Jurnalul de Constanta” newspaper (the appearance of which
has been suspended since then) was attacked by two unknown persons and thrown
out of the 636 train Constanta- Bucharest. The journalist was on his way to
a printing house in Bucharest, where he was to leave the slides (layouts) for
a new edition of the newspaper. Although Marian Tudor was also in the possession
of other valuables, the aggressors only took the envelope that contained the
slides (layouts). The journalist connected the robbing with the disclosing reports
that were to be published in “Jurnalul de Constanta”. 34.
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE ROMANIAN PENAL CODE In
October 1999, the Ministry of internal Affairs announced through one of its
counsels, that it intended to propose to the Parliament “a more severe
penalty system” against journalists, together with the adoption of the
draft law for the amendment and supplementing of the Penal Code. IN contradiction
with point 9 of Resolution 1123 adopted by the Parliamentary Meeting of the
European Council in April 1997, which stipulates that "Certain provisions
of the Penal Code now in force are unacceptable and seriously imperil the exercise
of fundamental rights, especially articles 205, 206, 238 and 239 relating to
insult and defamation, which interfere with the freedom of the press",
the proposals of the Ministry of Internal Affairs referred to the following:
punishment for the crime of defamation through the press by imprisonment from
1 to 7 years, as a result of the "increase in the frequency of defamation
through mass media (especially through the print media)" Defamation is
currently punished by imprisonment from three months to three years or by a
fine, regardless of the method by which it is committed; punishment for the
crime of defamation by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years; punishment for
the crime of insult by imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years or by a fine; The
current punishment is imprisonment from one month to two years or by a fine;
seizure of the means of mass information by which “press-related crimes”
are perpetrated. On
August 5, 2001, a PRO TV - Buzau operator was assaulted while he was filming
at the site of an accident caused by the daughter of a PNTCD deputy in the area
of the Greceanca commune. The aggressor was one of the very people who accompanied
the person who caused the accident. On the other hand, however, the Greceanca
policemen who were present did not consider it was necessary to intervene. 36.
DAN PAVEL AND THE POLICEMEN FROM POLICE SECTION NO. 20 On
August the 7th, the well-known political analyst Dan Pavel was verbally assaulted
by two policemen for reading a newspaper while he was exercising his rights
and duties as a mere pedestrian. The cursing continued with the transportation
of the editorial writer to Police Station No. 20. An interesting hearing of
the "culprit" took place there, which hearing included cursing and
pushing as methods of conduct. Dan Pavel informed us that first sergeant Simion
of Police Station No. 20 approached him with the following words: "If it
weren’t for this damn democracy, I would have trampled you down!". 37.
PROTEST OF “ZIUA DE ARDEAL” AND THE ASSOCIATION OF THE CLUJ MEDIA
EDITORS In
the middle of July 2000, a policeman was accused for having attempted to delay
the car that was transporting the layouts of the newspaper “Ziua de Ardeal”
to the printing house. The editors of “Ziua de Ardeal” and the Association
of the Cluj Media Editors published the following protest: The
Association of the Cluj Media Editors, representing the newspapers Transilvania
Jurnal, Monitorul de Cluj and ZIUA de Ardeal, protest against the attempts to
intimidate the media, conducted by several employees of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs. The Association is of the opinion that the first sergeant Avram Ardelean,
of the Cluj Road Police Office, carried out on Thursday night an order that
came from Bucharest, and was intended to prevent the printing and distribution
of the newspaper Ziua de Ardeal on Friday, July 14, 2000. Hoping we shall clarify
the situation, we are expecting an official answer from the management of IPJ
Cluj with respect to said incident. The
car of the ZIUA de Ardeal newspaper, which transported the printouts with the
newspaper pages to the printing house, was stopped on Thursday, at 6:50 PM,
at the intersection between the Iuliu Maniu Street and Piata Avram Iancu, by
the first sergeant Avram Ardelean of the Cluj Road Police Office. Upon the policeman’s
request, our driver, Aurel Muresan, handed the same all car documents and his
identity card. After having studied the documents for a few minutes, the policeman
asked the driver to open the car hood in order for the policeman to verify the
series of the engine and the coachwork, as well as the trunk, which request
our driver complied with. Due to the fact that the policeman searched the engine
series for a few minutes without finding the same, the driver identified himself
and asked the policeman to let him leave with the newspaper at the printing
house, otherwise there was a risk that the newspaper would fail to be published
the next day. We must specify that the deadline when our newspaper is to be
the printing house is 7:00 PM. The driver left the documents with the policeman
and assured him that he would be back in 10 to 15 minutes in order to have the
car verified. The first sergeant answered in an obviously irritated tone of
voice "you are going to stay here as long as I want you to, you do not
make the laws", after which the driver told him that he was leaving for
the printing house and he would be back in 10 minutes. When he came back, the
policeman was no longer in the respective area, so the driver went to the Road
Police headquarters, but neither first sergeant Ardelean, nor the shift officer,
lieutenant Nemes were at the offices. At 8:45 PM, after the two came back, four
non-commissioned officers were appointed in order to verify the series. The
verifications conducted by them clearly evidenced their lack of elementary knowledge
regarding the essential parts of a BMW vehicle, as the policemen tried to find
the series for several minutes. Finally, noticing that the policemen could not
find it, the driver showed them the series of the coachwork, which evidently
was the same as the series registered in the documents. He also submitted the
documents that evidenced that the engine series had been changed as a result
of the changing of the engine; said documents were only returned to him yesterday.
The first sergeant drafted minutes of infringement, in which he set out that
the color of the car does not correspond to the color specified in the documents,
and that the driver avoided the reading of the series; our driver rightfully
protested against this accusation. He objected in the minutes of infringement
that he did not avoid the reading of the coachwork, but only postponed it for
a few minutes due to the fact that the newspaper would not have been published
the next day. Sources
from inside the IGP, who wish to remain anonymous, informed us that first sergeant
Ardelean carried out an order that came from the Road Police Brigade of the
Bucharest IGP, which order, however, was not discussed in the morning’s
meeting. Therefore, the protest came directly on the first sergeant’s order
address, it being based upon the information that the car was had been stolen
and it circulated with false registration numbers. We
must specify the fact that the first sergeant is the nephew of colonel (r) Gavril
Neciu (the protagonist of several investigations published in our newspaper),
the former chief of the UM 0215 Cluj. Aurelian
Grama ZIUA
de Ardeal The
Protest of the Cluj Media Editors Association The
Cluj Media Editors Association hereby protests against the attitude of first
sergeant Avram Ardelean. The material supplied by the ZIUA de Ardeal editorial
board clearly evidences the abuse used by above-mentioned first sergeant against
the driver Aurel Muresan, who was on a mission that he had to fulfill, as well
as the first sergeant’s intention to undermine the newspaper’s due
publication. We must reiterate the fact that in order to be a policeman, the
militia officers must get rid of the old habits, which allowed them to think
that the laws are made by anybody else but the legislator. The "you do
not make the laws" principle applies both to the militia officers who want
to become policemen, and to the journalists. As long as there is no mutual respect
for each person’s work, one cannot invoke the law. Therefore, we hereby
demand the relevant empowered authorities to take note with respect to the deed
committed by first sergeant Avram Ardelean and to take the appropriate measures. Victor
Lungu 38.
ADRIAN IONESCU (EUROPA NOVA TELEVISION) and the COUNTY POLICE INSPECTORATE TIMIS August
4, 2000: Cameraman Adrian Ionescu of the Europa Nova Television of Timisoara,
was taken into custody by the police for trying to film an action of the IPJ
directed against several merchandisers who illegally sold various products in
the street. The cameraman was taken to Police Section No. 2 of Timisoara and
was only released upon the request of the chief of the County Police Inspectorate
Timis. 39.
DANIEL TOMONI – “TRANSILVANIA JURNAL” A
special case is the one of the journalist Daniel Tomoni of “Transilvania
Jurnal.” In July 2000, “Transilvania Jurnal” published information
regarding several colonels of the UM 01463 who had built a garage using the
rookies, a general who built a villa in Salaj using the same workforce, as well
as the commander of the Transilvania Army No. IV, who, according to the publication,
may have hunted deer from a military helicopter. The consequence of such disclosures
was as follows: Daniel Tomoni, who was in the course of serving his military
training at UM 01463 Floresti, the Cluj garrison, was subjected to a special
military service, and the sanctions he received even included five days in arrest. 40.
MARCEL BOT (“ZIUA DE ARDEAL”) and DANIEL MARIAN (“TRANSILVANIA
JURNAL”) vs. POLICEMEN FROM DEVA On
the night of August 30, 2000, the journalists Marcel Bot of "Ziua de Ardeal"
and Daniel Marian of the "Transilvania Jurnal", respectively, announced
the police that they had been attacked on the street by a group formed of four
thieves. Warrant officer Precup and senior sergeant Ghita, the two policemen
who immediately arrived on site, failed to request any information regarding
the event that had just occurred, but digressed from the dialogue with the two
journalists to a few pieces of information published in the central and local
press some time before.More specifically, the matter in discussion was a scandal
caused by several policemen in Deva, who had danced with prostitutes on the
tables of the "Izvorul Decebal" locale. Daniel Marian stated that
one of the protagonists of said scandal was warrant officer Precup himself,
which would offer an explanation with respect to the behavior of the two policemen.
Daniel Marian also asserted that the policemen appealed to threats like "You’ll
see at the station how things stand with the policemen and the <<Decebal>>
whores." 41.
CONSTANTIN SIMIRAD and “ZIUA DE IASI” Pursuant
several criticizing articles addressed to the mayor of the city of Iasi, Constantin
Simirad, published by the “Ziua de Iasi” daily newspaper a few years
ago, the journalists of this publication were no longer allowed access to the
municipality building for an indefinite period. A few times even the help of
the public wardens was requested in order to block the journalists’ access
in the institution’s building. Among other incidents, the journalist Marcela
Donciu was prevented from attending the meetings of the Local Council, and her
presence was solely accepted upon the intervention of a few members of the Council.
The status quo was also extended after the recent local elections, when Constantin
Simirad was reelected mayor. On June 19, 2000, the photo-reporter Aristotel
Furtuna was thrown out of the Mayoralty building, upon the initiative of the
institution’s spokesman, Andrei Trofor, and with the help of the public
wardens. The “Ziua de Iasi” journalists say that Andrei Trofor subsequently
made a phone-call to the publishing house, specifying that all the journalists
of “Ziua de Iasi” are forbidden access to the Mayoralty, however he
refused to send an official document in confirmation of his statement.
chief-editor of ZIUA de Ardeal Cluj-Napoca
July 14, 2000
Iuliu Maniu 6 / 18, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA
tel/fax.: 0040 (0)64 197166; e-mail: ziua-nv@ziua.ro; acta2@mail.dntcj.ro
The President of the Cluj Media Editors Association”