Type: Judgment

Authority: European Authorities: European Court of human rights

Date: 11/27/2007

Subject: Freedom of expression. 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. 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.

Parties: Timpul Info, Magazin e Anghel c/ Moldavia

Classification: Freedoms - Art. 11 Freedom of expression