CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25259/20 Oleg BALAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 9 June 2020 communicated on 19 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was at the time Minister of the Interior. An opposition politician (U.) published on his Facebook account a document, purportedly written by the secret service, which made the applicant responsible personally or as a manager for several serious criminal acts that had happened at the Ministry. The applicant showed in court that the secret service had not written such a note and that the addressee (the President of the Republic of Moldova) had not received any. While the first- and second-instance courts found in his favour, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected his complaint as unfounded, referring to the impossibility for U. to verify the authenticity of the document, the very existence of which would have to be denied by the secret service. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention owing to the failure of the domestic courts to protect his honour and dignity.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of dismissing by the domestic courts of his defamation action?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Petrenco v. Moldova , no. 20928/05, §§ 52-68, 30 March 2010)?   2. The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full copy of the domestic case-file.