CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3539816 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   881 24.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Flux v. Moldova (no. 7) (application no. 25367/05)   DAMAGES AWARDED AGAINST NEWSPAPER FOR HAVING CRITICISED MP IN GOOD FAITH WERE IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 10   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available in English only)     Principal facts   The applicant, Flux , is a newspaper registered in Moldova. On 9 April 2004, it published an article entitled “ Four more communists have obtained housing on our money ”. The article reported about four apartments apparently built with public money in a former Parliament warehouse and indicated that “ according to certain sources in Parliament, who have asked to remain anonymous, the future owners of the relevant apartments include V.S., the president of the communist fraction in Parliament… ”, as well as other politicians. The article, criticising the Parliament for its lack of transparency, added that the newspaper had tried to verify this information by telephoning V.S., the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and other State officials, but that it had been impossible to reach them.   However, the newspaper visited the apartments and took pictures. Mr Secăreanu, a Member of Parliament, also informed the newspaper that he had been told by the head of the Parliament apparatus (for whom one of the apartments was allegedly reserved) and another Deputy Speaker in the Parliament that the Parliament had paid for the apartments. The article further described Mr Secăreanu’s efforts to obtain information on the expenditure by the Parliament and the Presidency from the President of the Court of Accounts - information made secret by the latter -, as well as his efforts to obtain that information from the Parliament leadership.   On 5 May 2004, V.S. brought court proceedings against the applicant newspaper, claiming that he had been defamed by its article. On 7 June 2004, The Buiucani District Court accepted this claim in full, awarding damages to V.S. and ordering the newspaper to publish an apology. The court found that the expressions used had been defamatory and that the applicant newspaper had not submitted any evidence to prove that the information published about V.S. had been true. On 16 September 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal confirmed this judgment but reduced the award made. On 9 March 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant newspaper’s appeal on points of law.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Flux complained that its conviction for defamation amounted to a breach of its right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by article 10.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The article had been aimed at criticising the Parliament for alleged lack of transparency, rather than at disparaging V.S. (or any other person) specifically. It had dealt with the issue of whether the Parliament leadership had spent public money in a non-transparent manner, which had been a matter of genuine public interest, calling for particular protection under Article 10.   In situations such as in this case, where on the one hand a statement of fact has been made and insufficient evidence adduced to prove it, and on the other hand the journalist has been discussing an issue of genuine public interest, it was paramount to verify whether the journalist acted professionally and in good faith.   The Court considered that the applicant newspaper had acted in a professional manner and had attempted in good faith to verify its facts as far as it had been reasonably possible. The lack of any official information on the matter at issue, despite the applicant newspaper's attempts to obtain such details, plus the other uncontested facts raising legitimate doubts as to the legitimacy of the distribution of the apartments, could reasonably have prompted the journalist to report on anything that had been available, including unconfirmed rumours. Significantly, the applicant newspaper had clearly informed its readers in the article itself that it had been unable to verify the truth of the information received, and had thus avoided presenting the rumours on which it had been reporting as established facts.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the applicant newspaper claimed, for pecuniary damage, the amount of damages it had to pay to V.S.. The Court considered that this sum is a direct causal effect of the violation of Article 10, but made no award in this respect since the applicant newspaper had not established that it had paid these sums. The Court however awarded 12.25 euros (EUR) for the court fees paid by the applicant. It also awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.