Recognition of violation of freedom of expression in civil proceedings, without any award of compensation! Violation of Article 10 of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
The Association of Investigative Reporters and Editorial Security of Moldova and Sanduța v. the Republic of Moldova 12.10.2021 (application no. 4358/19)
SUMMARY
The case concerned defamation proceedings brought against the applicants, an NGO and a
journalist, for their article reporting on the Socialist Party of Moldova’s alleged financing by an
offshore company with Russian ties ahead of the 2016 Presidential elections. The leader of the
Socialist Party, Igor Dodon, was elected President of Moldova in those elections.
The Court was prepared to assume for the purposes of this case that revision proceedings and
subsequently reopened proceedings on the merits in 2020, dismissing the defamation action against
the applicants, had amounted to the domestic courts acknowledging a breach of Article 10 of the
Convention. However, it considered that the applicants had not been given sufficient redress in
those proceedings as the domestic courts had not awarded any compensation. It therefore refused
to dismiss the case for lack of victim status, and awarded the applicants 3,800 euros in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants are Asociația Reporteri de Investigație și Securitate Editorială din Moldova, a nongovernmental organisation based in Moldova, and a journalist, Iurie Sanduța, a Moldovan national
born in 1988 and living in Chișinău.
In September 2016 the applicant association published an article signed by Iurie Sanduța entitled
“Dodon’s Bahamas money”. The article reported that a Bahamas-based offshore company with links
to the Russian Federation had transferred 1.5 million euros to a Moldovan company headed by a
member of the Socialist Party who had close ties to Igor Dodon.
According to the article, the money had arrived in Moldova a few months before the 2016
presidential elections. A third had been withdrawn in cash for distribution to individuals close to the
Socialist Party in the form of free loans.
The Socialist Party subsequently initiated civil defamation proceedings against the applicants,
submitting that had any State body found any illegalities in the financing of the Socialist Party and of
its candidate, Mr Dodon would have been banned from participating in the presidential elections.
The applicants argued that they had merely presented evidence that EUR 1.5 million had been
transferred from an offshore company to a Moldovan company and that the money had ended up
with different members and supporters of the Socialist Party.
In a judgment of 21 December 2017, the Centru District Court found in favour of the Socialist Party.
It considered that the article had been defamatory because no State body had found that the
Socialist Party had received funds from abroad. The applicants were ordered to publish a retraction
admitting that the article had been untrue and to pay the plaintiff costs and expenses (amounting to
approximately EUR 10). All subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.
After the European Court notified the Moldovan Government of the present application, the
Government Agent lodged a revision request in 2018 with the Court of Appeal. This court, ultimately
in 2020, upheld the request and the judgments finding the applicants guilty of defamation were set
aside.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complained that their having been held
liable for defamation of the Socialist Party of Moldova had breached their right to impart
information.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the applicants had lost their victim status
because of the outcome of the revision proceedings. It noted that neither the Court of Appeal nor
the Government in the proceedings before it had awarded or offered to award any compensation to
the applicants, contrary to normal practice in many other cases. It therefore did not consider that
the dismissal of the defamation action had constituted sufficient redress in the applicants’ case.
Furthermore, the Court was prepared to assume for the purposes of this case that the overall
outcome of the revision proceedings and of the subsequently reopened proceedings on the merits
had amounted to an acknowledgement in substance of a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. In
view of its own case-law and noting that the domestic courts in the initial proceedings had not
conducted a proper balancing exercise, the Court saw no reason to depart from the above
conclusion and did not consider it necessary to re-examine the merits of this complaint.
Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention,
because of the applicants having been found liable for defaming the Socialist Party of Moldova.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that the Republic of Moldova was to pay the applicant 2,300 euros (EUR) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses.
