CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s43719078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 266 30.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Petrenco v. Moldova (application no. 20928/05)   PUBLICLY IMPLYING, WITHOUT PROOF, THAT A HISTORIAN COLLABORATED WITH THE KGB BREACHED THE CONVENTION   Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Principal facts   The applicant, Anatol Petrenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events, he was the Chairman of the Association of Historians of the Republic of Moldova and a university professor.   On 4 April 2002 the official newspaper of the Moldovan Government, Moldova   Suverană (“Sovereign Moldova”), published an article written by a historian and former deputy minister for education, S.N. The article made negative remarks about Mr Petrenco’s professional competence and suggested that he got his university place and subsequent career as a historian thanks to his cooperation with the Soviet secret services, the KGB.   On 18 April 2002, Mr Petrenco brought defamation proceedings against S.N. and the newspaper, seeking the publication of a retraction and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The first instance court found that the reference to the applicant’s links with the Soviet secret services did imply that he had collaborated with the KGB, that such collaboration was viewed as highly reprehensible by civil society and that it had not been proven that any collaboration had taken place. As a result, the court ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction of some of the statements in the 4 April 2002 article. That judgment was quashed on appeal and, upon a fresh examination of the case, the Moldovan courts dismissed Mr Petrenco’s complaints having found that S.N. could not be held responsible as he had only expressed his opinions.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that his reputation was damaged as a result of the publication of defamatory statements in the 4 April 2002 article. The Court found this complaint to fall under Article 8.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 May 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia) Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), Judges , and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The article had been published in the context of a lively debate of significant public interest. The applicant, a Chairman of the Association of Historians of the Republic of Moldova at the time, had been a public figure; therefore, he had had to tolerate higher public scrutiny and criticism than had he been a private citizen. In those circumstances, the general tone of the article and the insulting language had not in themselves breached Mr Petrenco’s right to respect for his reputation.   However, concerning the specific allegations implying that the applicant had collaborated with the Soviet secret services, the Court found that statements of that nature could not be considered mere value judgments the truthfulness of which could not be proven. Whether an individual had collaborated with the KGB was not a matter for speculation but a historical fact capable of being substantiated by relevant evidence. In addition, the first instance domestic court had found no proof that the applicant had been a KGB agent, and the higher domestic instances had not ruled otherwise. Accordingly, the Court held that the allegations of Mr   Petrenco’s collaboration with the KGB had constituted clear statements of fact which were likely to seriously discredit the applicant and his views on the question under discussion. As such, rather than contributing to the debate, the allegations had risked undermining its integrity and usefulness. By implying that the applicant had collaborated with the KGB as though it had been an established fact when it had been a mere speculation on the part of the author, the article had overstepped the limits of acceptable comments in the context of a debate of a general interest.   Taking into account that the allegations had been particularly grave, the Court held that there had been a violation of Mr Petrenco’s right to respect for their family life under Article 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Moldova is to pay the applicant 1.200   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   300 for costs and expenses.   Judges Garlicki, Šikuta and Poalelungi expressed a joint concurring opinion and judge Björgvinsson expressed a dissenting opinion, the texts of which are attached to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. 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 Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 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.