Legal opinion by attorney Răzvan Popescu: Freedom of expression does not exempt one from legal responsibility. “Public figure” and “public facts” – concepts lacking solid legal basis

Increasingly invoked in the public space, the right to freedom of expression risks being applied indiscriminately, to the detriment of other fundamental rights such as the right to privacy and the protection of personal data. In a legal analysis covering both European and national law, attorney Razvan Popescu highlights the risks of excessive interpretation of freedom of expression - particularly in journalistic activity and online communication.

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, essential in a democratic society. However, it is not an absolute right and cannot be exercised without limits, ignoring the effects it may have on other fundamental rights, such as privacy or data protection. Any exercise of this right must be analyzed in context, weighed against the actual public interest, the truthfulness of the information, and the proportionality of the approach. Without this balance, freedom of expression risks becoming not an instrument of information, but a pretext for unjustified interference,” emphasizes Razvan Popescu, a lawyer specialized in civil law and personal data protection.

An assessment of balance, not a ranking of rights

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, there is no predetermined hierarchy between the right to privacy and the right to information. The precedence of one over the other is determined case by case, through an analysis that considers factors such as public interest, the truthfulness of the information, the notoriety of the individual concerned, and the consequences of publication.

Dangerous confusions in national legislation. “Public figure” and “public facts” – concepts with no solid legal grounding.

The attorney draws attention to several gaps in Law no. 190/2018 on the application of the GDPR in Romania, especially regarding journalistic activity. Terms such as “public facts,” “public figure,” or “publicly disclosed information” are not clearly defined, leaving room for excessive interpretations and potential abuses.

“If all accessible data is automatically considered public, we risk eliminating any form of privacy protection. And this right cannot be emptied of meaning by vague national interpretations,” adds Razvan Popescu.

Implications for companies, journalists, and public figures

Conflicts between these two rights frequently arise in online environments, in the press, or in commercial communication. For this reason, companies, journalists, and public communicators must understand that invoking public interest or freedom of expression does not exempt them from legal obligations related to data processing.