CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 17 April 2018     SECOND SECTION Application no. 28470/12 NIT S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 May 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withdrawal of the applicant company’s licence to operate a television channel. The applicant company’s television channel was accused by the audio-visual national authority of lack of pluralism, politically biased programmes, favouring of one political party (from opposition) and placing of distorted news items. After the applicant company failed to comply with several official warnings by the audio-visual authority, its licence to operate was withdrawn. The applicant company’s court action against the measure imposed on it was not successful. The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair and under Article 10 of the Convention that the withdrawal of its licence amounted to a breach of its right to freedom of expression. The applicant company also complains that the withdrawal of its licence amounted to a breach of its right of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   If so, was the interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and was it necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?