CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 octobre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   685 16.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ŢARA AND POIATĂ v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ţara and Poiată v. Moldova (application no. 36305/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning statements which had accused Mr   Stepaniuc and his relatives of involvement in mismanagement of public transport.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 270   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   2,500 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Ţara , a newspaper based in Chişinău, and Petru Poiată, a Moldovan national who was born in 1961 and lives in Chişinău.   In October and November 2002 Ţara published two articles which alleged that Victor Stepaniuc, MP and leader of the Communist Faction of Parliament, was involved in mismanagement of Chişinău Tobacco Company’s distribution network and public transport.   Mr Stepaniuc brought proceedings for defamation against the newspaper and the author, Mr   Poiată. In January 2003 the courts found in favour of Mr Stepaniuc and ordered the applicants to pay a fine. The newspaper was also ordered to issue an apology.   The applicants appealed, arguing that they had based their reports on a letter written by managers of one of the bus companies and bus drivers’ statements. Their complaint was dismissed in June 2003.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   10 of the Convention, the applicants complained about their conviction for defamation.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   It was common ground between the parties, and the Court agreed, that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had been “prescribed by law” and pursued the “legitimate aim” of protecting Mr Stepaniuc’s dignitiy and reputation.   As concerned the allegations of mismanagement within the distribution network of the Chişinău Tobacco Company, the Court found that the part of the article which had made those allegations had constituted a statement of fact which had not been supported by any evidence and appeared to be totally unrelated to the rest of the article. The statement could therefore have been considered as offensive and damaging to Mr   Stepaniuc’s reputation. The Moldovan courts’ decision that that statement had been defamatory could be justified as “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 concerning that statement.   On the other hand, as concerned the accusations of mismanagement of public transport, Mr   Poiată had taken the precaution of mentioning that he had cited or summarised others’ statements. It also appeared that the articles had contained accurate statements of fact, such as family ties between Mr Stepaniuc and managers of the bus companies involved in mismanagement. The author had also relied on transport authority official reports. He could therefore have reasonably assumed that the information he had used had been reliable.   Having considered the language used, the fact that the statements had been written by a journalist concerning a matter of public interest, Mr Stepaniuc had been a high-ranking politician at the relevant time and the domestic courts had not distinguished between statements of fact and value judgments, the Court took the view that there had been no relevant and sufficient reasons for the Moldovan courts to find that the applicants had defamed Mr Stepaniuc. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 concerning the rest of the statements relating to mismanagement of public transport.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.