Communicated on 21 March 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 36712/10 Valentina ROȘCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 9 June 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, M s Valentina Rosca , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Seseni . She is repres ented before the Court by Ms T. Puiu , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In September 2002 a woman from the applicant ’ s village disappeared. Her dead body was found several days later in a well. The ensuing investigation led by the police reached the conclusion that the woman committed suicide and the case was closed.

On 11 June 2003 a handwritten letter was sent to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The letter stated that it was from a group of concerned villagers but was signed by the mayor of the applicant ’ s village and bore the stamp of the mayor ’ s office. The alleged authors of the letter recounted the events concerning the body found in the well and stated that they did not agree with the outcome of the investigation led by the police. They submitted that, in fact, the rumour in the village was that the victim had been killed by a person named C.C. and that latter ’ s husband and son had helped her carry the body to the well. According to the letter, the body was transported during the night with a black car and the investigation conducted by the police could have been arranged because the suspects had high-ranking relatives in the police. The alleged authors of the letter asked for the re ‑ opening of the investigation and asked that their letter be kept secret from C.C.

On an unspecified date C.C. obtained a copy of the above letter and in May 2006 she, her husband and her son initiated a civil defamation action against four persons, including the applicant. In her written submissions to the court, the applicant argued that she had not written the letter. However, during the proceedings an expert concluded that the letter had been written by the applicant.

In the meantime, C.C. also lodged a libel complaint in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offences. During those proceedings, the applicant admitted to having written the letter. She also submitted that she had been in very bad relations with C.C. and that she had only wanted to inform the authorities about the rumours in the village concerning the body found in the well. She also admitted to having forged the mayor ’ s signature and having abusively applied the stamp of the mayor ’ s office on her letter. On 25 June 2008 C.C. ’ s libel complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

On 16 December 2008 the Calarasi District Court upheld the civil defamation action against the applicant and ordered her to pay 10,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 715 euros) to the plaintiffs in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The applicant appealed against the judgment arguing, inter alia , that according to an explanatory judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice concerning civil defamation proceedings, no defamation was to be found where the imputed defamatory statements are contained in complaints and petitions addressed to competent law enforcement organs. The plaintiffs also appealed against the judgment and argued that the award of compensation was too small.

On 3 September 2009 the Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals and upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The Court of Appeal held that the information contained in the letter addressed by the applicant to the Minister of Internal Affairs had been false because a previous investigation had concluded that the victim had committed suicide. Both the applicant and the plaintiffs lodged and appeal on points of law against this judgment.

On 24 February 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal but upheld the plaintiffs ’ appeal and increas ed the amount of damages to MDL 20,000. The Supreme Court of Justice held that indeed there could not be defamation in cases where information contained in a petition addressed to the law enforcement organs was not true. However, that is only the case where the author of the petition acts in good faith with a view to informing the authorities about a breach of the law. According to the Supreme Court, the applicant acted in bad faith because she had not signed the letter but had forged the mayor ’ s signature and had abusively applied the mayor ’ s office ’ s stamp on her letter.

B. Relevant domestic law

According to paragraph 19 of decision No. 8 of the Plenar y Supreme Court of Justice of 9 October 2006, concerning the practice in cases of defamation, a person who made statements in a complaint addressed to law ‑ enforcement organs, which subsequently proved to be false, cannot be held liable for defamation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that her right to freedom of expression has been breached as a result of the fact that she has been found liable for defamation in civil proceedings and has been obliged to pay damages to the plaintiffs.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Zakharov v. Russia , no. 14881/03, § 26, 5 October 2006 and Sofranschi v. Moldova , no. 34690/05 , § 33, 21 December 2010) ?