Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93

January 2007

Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova - 41827/02

Judgment 9.1.2007 [Section IV]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Newspaper closure without detailed reason or identification of which published phrases threatened national security and territorial integrity: violation

Facts : The applicant published a series of articles criticising the authorities of Moldova for their actions in respect of the break-away Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria (MRT) and reproducing harsh criticism of the Moldovan Government by certain MRT and Russian leaders. The economic court of Moldova ordered the closure of the newspaper. The court considered that the articles had exceeded the limits of publicity in the Press Act and endangered the territorial integrity of Moldova, national security and public safety and created the potential for disorder and crime, violating the Constitution. The court did not specify which expression or phrase constituted a threat but maintained that the articles did not represent a fair summary of public statements by public authorities. The applicant was ordered to pay court fees. The judgment was upheld on appeal. The newspaper was subsequently re-registered under the name “Kommersant-Plus”.

Law : The closure of the newspaper constituted an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression which was prescribed by law. The interference could be considered to have pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the national security and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, given the sensitive topic dealt with in the impugned articles and the sometimes harsh language used. The Court considered however that the domestic courts did not give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, limiting them essentially to repeating the applicable legal provisions. The courts did not specify which elements of the applicant's articles were problematic and in what way they endangered the national security and the territorial integrity of the country or defamed the President and the country. The courts avoided all discussion of the necessity of the interference. The only analysis made was limited to the issue of whether the articles could be considered as good-faith reproductions of public statements for which the applicant could not be held responsible in accordance with the domestic law. In light of the lack of reasons given by the domestic courts, the Court was not satisfied that they had applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 or that they had based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – EUR 8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes