CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 novembre 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   842 27.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TIMPUL INFO-MAGAZIN AND ANGHEL v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova (application no. 42864/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Timpul Info-Magazin .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant newspaper 12,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Timpul Info-Magazin , a Moldovan newspaper based in Chişinău, and Alina Anghel, a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău.   The case concerned defamation proceedings against the applicants following the publication of an article, “Luxury in the Land of Poverty”.   The article, written by Ms Anghel, was published on 16 January 2004 and, in particular, criticised a Government practice of purchasing luxury cars. It referred notably to Government deals with D.H., a private investment fund, which lacked transparency as no official invitation for bids had been published before cars had been bought. It further suggested that certain cars bought had been overpriced.   On 23 January 2004 D.H. and D.P. (a private company which founded and managed D.H.) brought proceedings against the applicants for defamation. They also requested an injunction against the applicants to prevent them from publishing anything else about D.H. or D.P.. As a result, the newspaper’s office equipment was seized and their bank account frozen.   On 28 April 2004 Buiucani District Court found partly in favour of D.H. and D.P.. The district court cited in particular a statement in the article which it interpreted as an allegation that the President of Moldova had accepted a bribe of 500,000   dollars from D.H.. It concluded that that statement had caused severe damage to the professional reputation of D.H. and D.P. and awarded them 1,350,000   Moldovan   lei   (MDL) (EUR   95,725) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The newspaper was also ordered to publish an apology.   The applicants argued on appeal that the statement alleging bribery was preceded by the phrase “bad and surely ill-informed mouths in Chişinău, say that …” and was followed by the sentence: “it is not known whether this is simply speculation and unfounded accusations”. They had therefore made it very clear that the accusation was based on unconfirmed rumour. Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction on the ground that the newspaper had not proved the truth of that statement.   On 14 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice found that the applicants had published defamatory information but, considering that the fine was excessive, reduced it to MDL   130,000 (EUR   8,430).   Due to the financial implications of that fine, Timpul Info-Magazin has since had to close.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 November 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained that the defamation proceedings against them interfered with their right to freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   Given Ms Anghel’s request to the Court to not proceed with the examination of her complaint, the Court decided to strike out the application in so far as it related to her.   Article 10 It was common ground between both parties that the decisions of the Moldovan courts had amounted to an interference with the applicant newspaper’s right to freedom of expression. That interference had been “prescribed by law” (Article 16 of the Civil Code) and served the legitimate aim of protecting D.H.’s reputation.   The Court noted that the article had been written in good faith. It had clearly not aimed to disparage D.H. but to criticise the Government on a matter of genuine interest to the public: misuse and lack of transparency in spending of public money. Indeed, D.H. had not claimed, and the Moldovan courts had not found, that any part of the article had been untrue apart from the allegations of bribery. The statements concerning lack of transparency of car deals and overpricing had not been denied and, that in itself, could legitimately have raised doubts about the lawfulness of those transactions.   On the other hand, the Court noted that both the Moldovan courts and the Government had only relied on the part of the article which had made allegations of bribery and had taken it out of context. That allegation had been serious but the article, read in its entirety, had clearly warned that the rumour was unreliable.   The Court reiterated that, as part of its role as a “public watchdog”, the media’s reporting on stories or rumours was to be protected when not completely without foundation. The lack of any detailed information about the transactions, despite the newspaper’s attempts to find out more, as well as the other uncontested facts, raised legitimate doubts about the deals and could reasonably have prompted the newspaper to report on any available information, including unconfirmed rumours.   Furthermore, the Court considered that, when a private company decided to participate in transactions involving considerable amounts of public funds, it voluntarily exposed itself to increased scrutiny by the public and, particularly in the light of legitimate allegations of abuse, had to accept criticism.   In a similar vein, the article, written in the context of a forthcoming election, had discussed political issues and urged voters to punish those responsible for corruption. The Court recalled that the limits of permissible criticism were wider as concerned political issues.   In the light of the above, and bearing in mind the implications of the fine, namely that it had been capable “of discouraging open discussion of matters of public concern” and had, ultimately, forced the newspaper to close down, the Court considered that the interference with the applicant newspaper’s right to freedom of expression had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 10.     ***   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.