CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26076/13 Î.C.S. JURNAL DE CHIŞINĂU PLUS S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 8 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s (a private TV station) conviction under the Audiovisual Code for the offence of airing several movies for children with translated subtitles instead of dubbing. It raises an issue under Article 6 § 1 and Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 and/or Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the legal provision, which the applicant company was found to have broken, foreseeable in its application, notably as regards the notion of “movies for children” (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no.   931/13, § 142, 27 June 2017)? Did the courts give sufficient reasons for their judgments? (see, mutatis mutandis , Mitrofan v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 50054/07, §§   48-55, 15 January 2013)