Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)156 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Busuioc against Moldova

Savitchi against Moldova

(Application No. 61513/00 and 11039/02, judgments of 21/12/2004 and 11/10/2005, final on 21/03/2005 and 11/01/2006)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the civil conviction of journalists for defamation of civil servants (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken in order to comply with Moldova ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ' s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the a p plicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)156

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Busuioc against Moldova

Savatchi against Moldova

Introductory case summary

These cases concern an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicants, two journalists, in that they were ordered to pay damages for publishing articles criticising the personnel management of Chişinău International Airport and the traffic police, respectively (violations of Article 10).

In the Busuioc case, six airport employees brought in 1998 civil actions for defamation against the applicant. In its decision of 5 July 1999, the Chişinău Regional Court found that the article was defamatory in respect of five of the plaintiffs (also being inaccurate in respect of four of them) and awarded damages of a total amount equivalent to 224 euros to be paid by the applicant. As regards two of the plaintiffs, the European Court held that the passages at issue amounted to the expression of an opinion or value judgment reasonably inferred from an objective and factual basis, and that the applicant, acting in good faith and in accordance with the ethics of journalism, had investigated it by carrying out a reasonable amount of research. As regards another plaintiff, the Court held that the domestic courts ignored the evidence adduced by the applicant in support of his allegations, so that his conviction for defamation could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society.

In the Savatchi case, the European Court underlined that the article concerned a matter of public interest and that there appeared to be no strong reason to punish the journalist for reporting statements of a third person, bearing in mind the moderate language she had used, her good faith and lack of defamatory intention, the fact that the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof and the fact that the Moldovan courts had ignored the evidence adduced by the applicant to prove the truth of factual allegations.

I. P ayments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name

P ecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Busuioc

125 EUR

4 000 EUR

1 500 EUR

5 625 EUR

P aid on 09/06/2005

Savatchi

3 000 EUR

-

1 500 EUR

4 500 EUR

P aid on 04/04/2006

b) Individual measures

In both cases, the Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as all the costs incurred in connection with the convictions.

II. General measures

The violations found in the present cases arise from the fact that, when deciding on the allegations of defamation brought before them, the domestic courts did not distinguish correctly between facts and value judgments, as required by the well-established case-law under Article 10 of the Convention. Consequently, a change in domestic courts ' practice in this respect appears to be necessary.

To this end, and taking into account the direct effect afforded by the Moldovan authorities to judgments of the European Court, the judgments of the European Court have been translated and published in the Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova and on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice ( www.justice.md ) and disseminated to all relevant authorities.

Furthermore, on 15-16 November 2005, the Moldovan Ministry of Justice organised, together with the Council of Europe, a seminar for Moldovan judges on the application of Article 10 of the Convention. Moreover, out of the 23 civil cases in which the Supreme Court of Justice directly applied the case-law of the European Court in 2005, 5 cases concerned Article 10 of the Convention. For example, in the case of Customs Department of the Republic of Moldova against Transparency International Moldova (judgment of 14 December 2005) the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the state ' s complaint on the basis of Article 10 of the Convention.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 December 2007 at the 1013th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies