CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 5 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s86894D07 { width:144.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB37DE621 { width:37.39pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFCC17DF1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9493FCBA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7DFB8BBB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:39.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s610C4C19 { margin-left:-14.1pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C08A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC9B6AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCC42361D { width:54.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC879EADF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF74FB00F { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.5pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s48FC6C54 { width:23.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7100D9DD { width:142.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA8208715 { width:9.2pt; display:inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 28470/12)     JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Justified revocation of broadcasting licence of a TV channel after repeated and serious breach of the statutory requirement to ensure political balance and pluralism in news bulletins • Development of general principles when striking a proper balance between political pluralism in the media and editorial freedom • Internal and external pluralism to be considered in combination with each other • Wide margin of appreciation afforded in principle as to choice of means for ensuring media pluralism • Fairness of proceedings and procedural safeguards particularly relevant to proportionality assessment in case of licence revocation, given sanction severity • Convention compliance of national framework including safeguards to ensure media regulator’s independence and its protection against political pressures • Sanction devoid of political motivation and proportionate, given availability of other means of broadcasting, possibility to reapply for a licence in a year, judicial review and procedural safeguards Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Fair balance struck between general interest of the community and property rights of the applicant company in decision to revoke broadcasting licence   STRASBOURG 5 April 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Ksenija Turković,   Síofra O’Leary,   Yonko Grozev,   Paul Lemmens,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Branko Lubarda,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Jolien Schukking,   María Elósegui,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Darian Pavli,   Erik Wennerström,   Saadet Yüksel, judges, and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2020 and 1 December 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 28470/12) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a company incorporated in Moldova, ÎM “Noile Idei Televizate” S.R.L. - NIT S.R.L. (“the applicant company”), on 11 May 2012. 2.     The applicant company was represented successively by Ms   A.   Răileanu and Ms Z. Curuci, its general managers, and Mr P. Bălan, a lawyer practising in Chişinău, and was granted leave to have its case presented in the oral hearing proceedings before the Court by Ms A. Nica, an adviser (Rule   36 of the Rules of Court). The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant company alleged that the revocation by the Audiovisual Coordinating Council (“the ACC”) of the broadcasting licence of its television channel of the same name (NIT) on 5 April 2012 had amounted to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and that, as a result, its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had been violated, contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In addition, the applicant company alleged that the proceedings it had brought against the ACC’s above ‑ mentioned decision had been unfair, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant company also alleged that it had not had access to an effective remedy for its complaints and had been discriminated against, in breach of, respectively, Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, each taken in conjunction with Articles   6 and 10. 4.     The application was initially allocated to the Third Section of the Court, and subsequently to its Second Section (Rule   52 § 1). 5.     On 17   April 2018 the Government were given notice of the application. 6.     On 3 March 2020 a Chamber of the Second Section, composed of Robert Spano, President, Valeriu Griţco, Egidijus Kūris, Ivana Jelić, Arnfinn   Bårdsen, Darian Pavli and Saadet Yüksel, judges, together with Hasan   Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected thereto (Article   30 of the Convention and Rule   72). 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 8.     The applicant company and the Government each filed written observations. 9.     A hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 14   October 2020 (Rule 59 § 3); on account of the public ‑ health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, it was held via videoconference. The webcast of the hearing was made public on the Court’s Internet site on the following day. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   O. Rotari , Ministry of Justice,   Agent , Ms   D. Maimescu , lawyer attached to the Government’s Agent Department, Ministry of Justice Adviser . (b)     for the applicant company Ms   A. Nica , Alliance for Justice and Human Rights,   Adviser .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Rotari and Ms Nica, followed by their answers to questions from judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.     The applicant company is a limited liability company incorporated in Moldova. The identity of its owners is unknown to the Court. Its television channel NIT operated in Moldova from 1997. From 2004 NIT began broadcasting nationally. Historical background 11.     Before Moldova gained independence in 1991, the ownership of mass media outlets was a privilege exclusively reserved for the State and the ruling party. In the 1990s and the early 2000s the National Television of Moldova (NTM) was the only Moldovan television channel with national coverage. It was fully State-controlled and had a virtual monopoly over audiovisual broadcasting in the country. There were two other television channels with national coverage at that time, the Russian State television channel and the Romanian State television channel, which rebroadcast programmes from their respective countries. 12 .     In the elections of 2001, the Party of the Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM), which was created at the beginning of the 1990s and had declared itself to be the successor of the Communist Party of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic, obtained seventy-one out of the total of 101   seats in Parliament. As a result, the PCRM became the only governing party. A detailed description of the media situation at that time can be found in the Court’s judgment in Manole and Others v. Moldova (no.   13936/02, ECHR 2009 (extracts)). In that case, journalists from NTM alleged, inter alia , that they had to comply with a policy of devoting a disproportionate amount of airtime to reporting on the acts of members of the ruling political party, with little or no coverage of the acts and views of the opposition parties (ibid., §   105). In 2002 the journalists in question protested against this practice; they went on strike and barricaded themselves in the NTM building. Eventually, the building was stormed by special forces and the journalists were dismissed. The situation gave rise to large-scale demonstrations organised by the opposition to protest against the actions of the government and the practice of censorship on national television, a heated public debate, and strong international reactions, including from the Council of Europe (ibid., §§   72 ‑ 78). In its judgment the Court noted the following (ibid., § 108): “... during most of the period in question [2001-2004] [NTM] was the sole Moldovan broadcasting organisation producing television programmes which could be viewed throughout the country ... Moreover, approximately 60% of the population lived in rural areas, with no or limited access to cable or satellite television or, according to the Secretary General’s Special Representative, newspapers ... In these circumstances, it was of vital importance to the functioning of democracy in Moldova that [NTM] transmitted accurate and balanced news and information and that its programming reflected the full range of political opinion and debate in the country and the State authorities were under a strong positive obligation to put in place the conditions to permit this to occur.” 13.     The Court found that the Moldovan State authorities had failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention as the legislative framework was flawed (ibid., § 111) and held that there had been a violation of that Article. Enactment of the Audiovisual Code of 2006 14 .     Against the background of the events described above and as a result of internal and external reactions to them, the government decided to draft new broadcasting legislation. The “Informative Note” appended to the draft Audiovisual Code of 2006 (“the Code”) stated, inter alia , the following: “This bill aims at establishing the democratic principles of functioning of the audiovisual [sector] of the Republic of Moldova, ensuring protection of the rights of programme consumers ...”. And: “The draft seeks to balance broadcasting freedom with ‘more responsibility’ on the part of broadcasters, especially with regard to observing ‘the rights of the programme consumer’, who will now have ‘the possibility to address the competent authorities to ensure the appropriate conditions for free formation of opinion’.” [1] 15.     The Council of Europe’s Media Division was involved in the legislative process. It requested two media experts to analyse and comment on the draft bill. These experts, in their report of May 2006, welcomed, inter   alia , the fact that the draft bill specified procedures and criteria for licensing private broadcasters. 16 .     As regards Article 7 of the draft Code on political and social balance and pluralism (see paragraph 85 below), the experts expressed the view that the principle set out in the second paragraph was “commendable”. No comment was made by the experts in respect of what became Article 7 §   4 of the final text of the draft Code. 17.     As regards Article 27 on revocation of a broadcasting licence and Article   38 on sanctions, the experts suggested that the ACC should have discretion as to what, if any, sanction to apply rather than instituting an obligation for it to withdraw a licence. They also suggested that the initial list of three sanctions (public warning, fine and licence revocation) be extended to five sanctions (public warning, fine, deprivation of the right to broadcast advertisements, temporary suspension of licence and revocation of licence) and that revocation of a licence could happen only in cases of repeated serious violations of the Code. Those suggestions were incorporated in the final text of the Code (see paragraph 85 below). 18 .     The Council of Europe experts also identified a number of shortcomings in the draft Code, inter alia in relation to the structure of the ACC. In their view the proposed structure gave the government the ability to exert undue influence and control over the ACC and, through it, over all broadcasters. The experts made several proposals to improve the draft bill, which were all accepted by the Moldovan Parliament and were included in the final text of the Code (see paragraph 85 below). In particular, Parliament excluded from the draft bill the idea that the nomination of the ACC members should be done by “taking into account the number of mandates held by the legally established parliamentary factions”. Parliament also accepted the suggestions to extend the class of potential nominators to include major sectors of civil society, to provide a detailed job description, to introduce staggered terms for ACC members and to remove their status as “public officials”, and the suggestions concerning the ACC’s funding. 19.     The Code was adopted by Parliament on 27 July 2006 and was in force until 1 January 2019, on which date it was replaced by the Audiovisual Code of 2018. Further political developments 20 .     On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. According to the preliminary results, announced on 6 April, the ruling party narrowly won the elections. Accusations of electoral fraud, street protests and large-scale operations by police and special forces units followed (a description of the events in question can be found in the Court’s judgment in Iurcu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 33759/10, §§ 6-9, 9 April 2013). In July of the same year fresh elections took place. As a result of those elections, the PCRM lost its majority in Parliament and became the only opposition party, with forty ‑ eight of the total of 101 parliamentary seats. An alliance of four smaller political parties, called the Alliance for European Integration (AEI), formed the new government. Broadcasting situation in Moldova in 2012 21.     According to information submitted by the parties, on 1   January 2012 there were sixty-four broadcasting licences issued in Moldova, five of which related to nationwide coverage. 22.     According to a study conducted by the Moldovan Centre for Independent Journalism in March 2012, the three television channels with nationwide coverage which enjoyed the largest audience were Prime TV (a channel rebroadcasting the Russian State television channel and inserting some local content) with 47.9% of the audience, Moldova 1 (the former NTM) with 34.5% of the audience, and NIT (rebroadcasting a Russian television channel and inserting some local content) with 26.3% of the audience. The fourth and fifth television channels with nationwide coverage were 2Plus, which had taken over the frequency which used to belong to the Romanian State television channel and was rebroadcasting a Romanian channel and inserting some local content, with 6.9% of the audience, and EuroTV Chişinău with 2.7% of the audience. 23 .     All these five channels were broadcasting on analogue frequencies. Composition of the ACC in 2012 24 .     From the publicly available parliamentary decision confirming their appointment, it appears that six out of the nine members who formed the ACC in 2012 were appointed before the change of government in 2009. Three of them were appointed in 2006 and remained in office until 2012; three were appointed in 2008 and remained in office until 2014; and three were appointed in 2011 and remained in office until 2017. The case of NIT Issuing of the new broadcasting licence 25 .     The television channel NIT operated in Moldova from 1997. From 2004 NIT had nationwide coverage. On 7 May 2008, a new broadcasting licence was issued by the ACC to the applicant company, on the basis of Article 23 of the Code, for a period of seven years. 26.     The terms of the licence stated that the broadcaster was obliged to observe the provisions of the Code. The terms of the licence, under point   3.1 letter (e), further stipulated that the broadcaster should provide information completely, correctly and promptly, in the spirit of the constitutional provisions, and the pluralism of opinions. Sanctions imposed prior to the revocation of the broadcasting licence 27.     Information published on the website of the ACC, including the annual reports that it began to produce and publish in 2007, show that since the Code had entered into force the ACC had imposed sanctions on numerous companies holding broadcasting licences for radio and television channels, including the applicant company, for breaches of provisions of that Code. From the annual reports for 2007 and 2008 it appears that the ACC applied a total of forty-three sanctions in 2007 and more than twenty ‑ five sanctions in 2008. 28 .     It appears from this information that on 15 and 23 May 2007, respectively, the ACC (i) fined the applicant company 2,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 122 euros (EUR)) because NIT had broadcast deceptive advertisement during one of its shows and (ii) gave it a public warning because NIT’s news bulletins had, among other things, breached Article   7 §§   1 and 4(c) of the Code during an election campaign in May 2007. On the latter occasion the ACC gave the applicant company seven days to ensure that NIT’s news bulletins complied with the relevant provisions of the Code. It does not appear from this information that the applicant company received any sanctions from the ACC in 2008. 29 .     From the materials submitted to the Court by the parties it appears that between 2009 and 2011, on the basis of monitoring carried out by the ACC either of its own motion or after complaints submitted to it, the ACC imposed eleven sanctions on the applicant company because NIT had breached Article   7 of the Code. In particular, NIT was found guilty of being one ‑ sided and politically biased in favour of the PCRM in its news bulletins, contrary to the provisions of Article 7 § 2, and of failing to give an opportunity to other parties to comment on the accusations made against them, contrary to Article   7 §   4. The following sanctions were imposed: (i)     on 24 March 2009, a public warning for breaching Article   7 §§   1, 2, 3 and 4(b) and (c); the applicant company did not challenge this sanction; (ii)     on 6 November 2009, a fine of MDL 5,400 (approximately EUR   330) for breaching Article 7 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4(b) and (c); the applicant company unsuccessfully challenged the sanction in the courts and the court judgments became final; (iii)     on 30 March 2010, a public warning for breaching Article   16 §§   2 and 3; the applicant company unsuccessfully challenged it in the courts and the court judgments became final; (iv)     on 15 September 2010, a fine of MDL 5,400 for breaching Article   7 §   4(b) and (c); the applicant company unsuccessfully challenged it in the courts and the court judgments became final; (v)     on 29 October 2010, deprivation of the right to broadcast advertisements for three days for breaching Article 7 §§   1 and 4(b) and (c); the applicant company challenged the decision in the courts and had it quashed on procedural grounds; (vi)     on 10 November 2010, a fine of MDL 5,400 for breaching Article   7 §§   1, 2, 3 and 4(c); the applicant company challenged the decision in the courts and had it quashed on procedural grounds; (vii)     on 19 November 2010, deprivation of the right to broadcast advertisements for five days for breaching Article 7 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4(c); the applicant company challenged the decision in the courts and at the same time asked the courts to suspend the enforcement of the decision pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits. Even though by an interlocutory judgment of 13 December 2010, amenable to an appeal together with the merits of the case, the courts dismissed the applicant company’s application to have the enforcement of the decision suspended, they eventually quashed the aforementioned ACC decision on procedural grounds; (viii)     on 18 May 2011, a public warning for breaching Article   7 §§   1, 2, 3 and 4(c); the applicant company did not challenge it. Along with NIT, six   other television channels were warned about a breach of Article   7 of the Code in their news bulletins; (ix)     on 27 May 2011, a fine of MDL 5,400 for breaching Article 7 §§   1, 2, 3 and 4(c); the applicant company did not challenge it in the courts and paid the fine. Along with NIT, two other television channels were warned about a breach of Article 7 of the Code in their news bulletins; (x)     on 3 June 2011, deprivation of the right to broadcast advertisements for five days for breaching Article 7 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4(b) and (c); the applicant company unsuccessfully challenged the decision in the courts and the court judgments became final after the revocation of its licence. Along with NIT, two other television channels, including the national channel, were warned about a breach of Article 7 of the Code in their news bulletins; and (xi)     on 24 June 2011, suspension of its broadcasting licence for five days for breaching Article 7 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4(a), (b) and (c); the applicant company unsuccessfully challenged the decision in the courts and the court judgments became final after the revocation of its licence. Along with NIT, another television channel was fined for breaching Article 7 of the Code in its news bulletins. 30.     In addition to the above-mentioned sanctions, NIT received sanctions on two other occasions between 2009 and 2011 for breaching other provisions of the Code. Furthermore, on two occasions in 2010 NIT was given deadlines to comply with the provisions of the Code without any sanctions being applied. 31.     However, from information submitted to the Court by the parties it also appears that the ACC dismissed complaints directed against NIT. For instance, on 29 October 2010 the ACC dismissed a complaint of 22   October 2010 by the representative to the Central Electoral Commission of one of the PCRM’s rival political parties alleging that one of NIT’s shows had failed to comply with the principles of impartiality and pluralism of opinion and that the political party he was representing had been denied the right to respond. Also, on 7 January 2012 the ACC dismissed an application of 16   December 2011 by the State Inspectorate for the Supervision of Alcoholic Production to have NIT punished for breaching the relevant legislation on advertising. In addition, on 29 March 2012 the ACC dismissed an application of 15   March 2012 by a member of parliament to have NIT punished for broadcasting during its evening news an allegedly propagandistic report by a Russian news agency stating that incidents entailing mass disorder were to take place in Moldova on the occasion of the presidential election and that the Prime Minister and the President had prepared their escape from the country. Revocation of the broadcasting licence (a)    The monitoring process 32 .     On 29 March 2012, during a public meeting, the ACC decided to carry out a thematic monitoring process for the news bulletins of all television channels with nationwide coverage and the Vocea Basarabiei radio station, regarding compliance with Article 7 of the Code. 33.     In accordance with Article 37 § 1, Article 40 § 1(a), (b) and (d) and Article   41 §   1(a) of the Code, the main news bulletins of the Vocea Basarabiei private radio station (Ştiri – aired at 6 p.m.), of the public television channel Moldova   1 (Mesager – aired at 7 p.m.), and of the private television channels Prime (Primele ştiri – aired at 9 p.m.), EuroTV Chişinău (Ştiri – aired at 8.30   p.m.), NIT (Curier – aired at 10 p.m.) and 2 Plus (Reporter – aired at 7   p.m.) were subjected to monitoring. The monitoring was carried out over a period of five days. 34.     The methodology of the monitoring, involving comparative and chronometric measurements of contents, had been devised by the ACC in collaboration with experts from the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. Two international experts participated as observers in the monitoring carried out in accordance with the above methodology between 2010 and 2011 and confirmed the monitoring results presented by the ACC in those years. (b)    The monitoring report 35 .     The monitoring report on compliance with Article 7 of the Code contained an overview per channel of data concerning screen time spent on issues relating to specific political parties or specific political figures, including the number of seconds during which those issues were presented in a positive, negative or neutral manner. For each channel this overview was accompanied by a number of comments. The report attested that the news bulletins of the Vocea Basarabiei radio station and of the television channels Moldova   1, Prime, EuroTV Chişinău and 2 Plus had presented news with a balanced structure and had complied with the principle of providing information from several sources in the event of conflicting issues. Nonetheless, the monitoring results for Moldova   1 indicated that it had given significantly more airtime to the ruling parties in its news bulletins. 36 .     As to NIT, the report indicated that the news items aired by it concerning the AEI had lasted for over one hour and thirty-two minutes, during which the AEI had been referred to in a neutral manner for only eight seconds and the rest of the time in a negative manner. At the same time, the news items concerning the PCRM had lasted for over forty ‑ one minutes, of which thirty-four minutes were neutral, six minutes were positive and only forty-four seconds were negative. It was concluded that this imbalance was in breach of Article   7 §   2 of the Code. Furthermore, the news items referred only in a negative manner to representatives of the government, Parliament and the Chişinău Mayor’s Office and the representatives of those bodies were never given an opportunity to react as required by Article 7 § 4(c) of the Code. The representatives of the PCRM and those involved in organising protests together with the PCRM against the government were always praised or referred to in a neutral manner. 37 .     The report also recorded that NIT’s news bulletins had publicised the protest actions organised by the PCRM against the government, had included an anti-government propaganda video clip and had featured captions amounting to manipulation. In presenting a news item about an opinion poll conducted by NIT reporters on the streets of Chişinău, Hânceşti and Străşeni, NIT had, for example, presented exclusively the opinions of PCRM supporters who had expressed critical views about the government. This was found to be a breach of Article 7 § 4(c) of the Code. 38 .     It was further noted that in reporting about protests organised by the PCRM, NIT had used captions and cited official declarations from those protests without showing images of the actual documents referred to. Thus, it was concluded that NIT had breached Article 7 § 4(a) of the Code, which requires each news story to be accurate. Moreover, NIT was found to have acted in breach of Article 7 § 4(b) because the news anchor had introduced an item by saying: “Disturbed by the cynicism of the AEI, the Căuşeni local councillors demand the resignation of the incompetent government”, before reading out a declaration by members of the aforementioned local council. 39 .     Lastly, it was found that NIT had promoted aggressive journalistic language, had often not complied with the requirements concerning the diversification of sources, and had also used images, editing tricks or comments in order to distort the real facts or to denigrate the image of other subjects. (c)    The ACC’s decision 40 .     On 2 April 2012 the applicant company was provided with a copy of the monitoring report. In the accompanying letter it was informed that its news bulletins and those of the other national broadcasters had been monitored following the ACC’s decision of 29 March (see paragraph   32 above), that the results of the monitoring would be examined at the ACC’s public meeting of 5 April 2012, that this meeting would start at 10 a.m., and that its presence at the meeting was mandatory. 41.     The minutes of the 5 April 2012 meeting reveal that eight of the ACC’s nine members were present and that NIT’s representative was also present and answered questions. According to the minutes, NIT’s representative had stated that although this might sound paradoxical, NIT was pleased with the monitoring report because it mentioned NIT’s predominantly neutral stance towards the PCRM and towards other political parties. From the minutes it further appears that during the discussions which ensued on the findings of the monitoring report on NIT, several ACC members had described the way in which NIT had presented its news bulletins as “manipulation” and “spreading fake news”. It was stated, inter   alia , that during one of the news bulletins one of the leaders of the AEI had been compared to Hitler and all leaders had been referred to as “criminals”, “bandits” and “crooks”. The terms used to describe the AEI government had included “dictatorial regime”, “unconstitutional regime”, “usurpers of power”, “traitors”, “the group of the three usurpers”, and “criminal gang”. Some of the ACC members had believed that NIT’s news bulletins incited to hatred, violence and xenophobia. For instance, in a news item about anti-government demonstrations, slogans such as “usurpers, get out of Moldova” or “enemies of the people” could be heard. In another news item concerning an anti-government demonstration, people had been heard saying: “we shall unleash a fight against the traitors in power to regain the sovereignty of Moldova” and “we do not need pseudo ‑ Romanianised and Western stooges”. One member of the ACC had expressed the view that the news bulletins had been presented in such a manner that no distinction could be made between the facts presented in them and the biased opinions of the journalists commenting on them. NIT had also been criticised for making public announcements concerning the time and place of the anti-government protests organised by the PCRM. One of the ACC members had stated that the problem had not resided in the fact that the government had been criticised, the television channel being free to criticise the government as much as it wished in its shows. However, it was obliged to respect the rules concerning pluralism in its news bulletins. One of the ACC members had stated that Article 7 § 2 of the Code concerned rather the period for election campaigns and that news bulletins could not remain neutral towards the government. He believed that the monitoring had been conducted with the sole purpose of imposing further sanctions on NIT and that if NIT’s sanctioning by the ACC continued, this could be construed as an attack on freedom of expression. He expressed the opinion that the other ACC members were silently fulfilling political instructions and urged them to act responsibly even though they had the power to close down a television channel. 42 .     At the end of the discussions the ACC member tasked with presenting the findings of the monitoring report was given the floor and concluded by saying that he always took responsibility and that today he was taking responsibility in proposing that, in accordance with the gradual approach, a sanction be imposed on NIT in the form of the revocation of its broadcasting licence. The proposal was put to a vote and accepted by seven votes to one. 43 .     The ACC’s decision delivered on the same date reiterated the findings set out in the monitoring report (see paragraphs 35-39 above). In addition, it stated: “At the same time, the breaches found fall under Article 10 § 5 of the ... Code... Under the conditions of the broadcasting licence ..., point 3.1. letter (a): ̒ The licence holder is obliged to carry out its activities in compliance with the ... Code ̓, and letter (e), ‘to carry out its activities on condition of observing: the right to complete, truthful and operative information within the meaning of the constitutional provisions, as well as the pluralism of opinions.̓ At the same time, we should mention that ... NIT was publicly warned, by the ACC’s decision ... of 18 May 2011, for breaches of the provisions of Article 7 ... of the ... Code. By the ACC’s decision ... of 27 May 2011, a fine ... was imposed ... for repeated breaches of the provisions of Article 7 ... of the ... Code. By the ACC’s decision ... of 3   June 2011, a sanction was applied ... in the form of suspension of the right to broadcast commercial advertising ..., for repeated breaches of the provisions of Article 7 ... of the ... Code, and by the ACC’s decision ... of 24 June 2011, the ... [channel]’s broadcasting licence was suspended ... for repeated breaches of the provisions of Article 7 ... of the ... Code. Taking into account the ACC’s decisions ... of 6 November 2009, ... 15   September 2010, ... 18 May 2011, ... 27 May 2011, ... 3 June 2011 and ... 24   June 2011, as a result of the examination of the monitoring report ..., [and] the public debates, on the basis of the provisions of the ... Code..., the [ACC] Decides: ...     To approve the monitoring report ... ...     To publicly warn ... the founder of the Moldova 1 television channel, for breaches of the provisions of Article 7 § 2 of the Audiovisual Code, in accordance with Article   38 §   3 ... (a) of the Audiovisual Code. ...     To withdraw the broadcasting licence ... for the television channel NIT, in accordance with Article 27 § 1 ... (a) and (b) and § 2 and Article 38 §   1 ... (e), § 2 ... (b) and (f), § 3 of the ... Code, for repeated breaches of the provisions of Article 7 §§ 1, 2 and 4, ... (a), (b) and (c) and Article 10 § 5 of the ... Code and point 3.1, letters (a) and (e) of the terms of the broadcasting licence. ...” 44.     The ACC’s decision was published in the Official Gazette on 6   April 2012. Proceedings against the revocation decision (a)    Preliminary challenge before the ACC 45.     On 5 April 2012 the applicant company brought a preliminary challenge before the ACC against the revocation decision, relying on section   14 of Law no. 793-XIV/2000 on administrative court proceedings (see paragraph 87 below) and seeking to have the revocation of the broadcasting licence declared void. It argued, in essence, that the ACC’s decision had been unlawful and unreasoned and had therefore interfered with NIT’s editorial independence, in breach of the right to freedom of expression. 46.     On 27 April 2012 the applicant company’s preliminary challenge was dismissed by the ACC as being ill-founded. The ACC held, in short, that it had revoked the broadcasting licence only after it had gradually applied all the other sanctions provided for in Article 38 of the Code. (b)    Applications for interim measures 47 .     On 6 April 2012, at the same time as lodging an appeal against the ACC’s decision of 5   April 2012 with the Chişinău Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) (see paragraph 55 below), the applicant company also asked the same court to stay the enforcement of the decision pending a judgment on the merits and to take protective measures. The applicant company relied on section 21 of Law no. 793-XIV/2000 on administrative court proceedings (see paragraph 87 below) and on Articles 174, 175 and 177 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”). It argued that the absence of a protective measure would clearly cause difficulties when enforcing a judgment on the merits in its favour and would very likely make that judgment impossible to enforce. Also, it argued that the immediate enforcement of the decision would result in serious and imminent losses for the applicant company and would destroy its television channel. 48.     The applicant company contended that, in accordance with the applicable rules, the owner of the broadcasting licence had to return the revoked licence to the ACC. Given the nature of the activity authorised by the broadcasting licence, its owner would therefore be forced to suspend broadcasting indefinitely or end it altogether. Thus, the psychological and financial well-being of NIT’s employees would be affected and the television channel would lose any current or future commercial endorsements and would be forced to terminate other existing contracts, which could result in significant financial liabilities and penalties. The impugned measure would also breach the television channel’s right to freedom of expression, including its right to impart information and the public’s right to receive it. Lastly, the broadcasting frequencies covered by the licence would be made available to other broadcasters through a public competition, rendering the enforcement of a favourable judgment on the merits virtually impossible. 49 .     By an interlocutory judgment of 9 April 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s application for a stay of enforcement. The Court of Appeal held: “Having reviewed the arguments raised [by the applicant company] in its application ..., [it] considers that the application is ill-founded and has to be dismissed ... Under section 21(1) of Law no. 793-XIV/2000, the applicant [company] could ask for a stay of enforcement of the administrative act at the same time as bringing proceedings before the court. The ... court [wishes] to mention that by the ACC decision ... of 5 April 2012 the activity of the NIT television channel had in fact been stopped ... By staying [the enforcement of] the contested administrative act, the court would expose itself [to the risk] of determining the merits of the case, [a step] which is inadmissible at this stage of the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the CCP. [Given] ... that the reasons for the [applicant company’s] application for a stay [of enforcement] of the administrative act were not justified by it, the court ... considers that it is necessary to dismiss the application ...” 50.     On 10 April 2012 the applicant company repeated its application to the Court of Appeal for a stay of enforcement, relying on the same provisions of domestic law (see paragraph 47 above). It again argued that it might suffer imminent and partly permanent damage, pointing to the fact that the competent authorities had informed it on 6 April 2012 that its broadcasting would be stopped and that one of the ACC members had confirmed in a press statement the company’s concerns that the broadcasting frequencies covered by the revoked licence would be advertised by way of public competition. 51.     By an interlocutory judgment of 11 April 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed this application. It held: “Having reviewed the arguments raised [by the applicant company] in its repeated application ..., [it] considers that the application is ill-founded and has to be dismissed ... ...   On 9 April 2012 the [court] dismissed a similar application by the applicant company ... ...   the interlocutory judgment ... of 9 April 2012 ... was served on the applicant company’s representative on the same date, [together] with an explanation that [the applicant company] could lodge an appeal on points of law [against the interlocutory judgment] within fifteen days ... if [it] disagreed with that ... judgment.” 52.     The applicant company appealed on points of law against both interlocutory judgments. It argued that on 9 April 2012 the Court of Appeal had dismissed