Communicated on 3 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 16191/07 Liubovi GUDEMA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 3 March 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Liubovi Gudema , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Dondușeni .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

At the time of the events, the applicant was the director of a meat ‑ processing company. In 2004 insolvency proceedings were initiated in respect of the company, and L. was appointed by the court as the insolvency administrator.

Unsatisfied with L. ’ s management of matters relating to the insolvency, between 2005 and 2006 the applicant lodged numerous complaints and appeals with criminal investigation authorities and insolvency courts. Some of her appeals were accepted, but her criminal complaints were repeatedly rejected as ill-founded.

In 2005 L. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, arguing that her criminal complaints were libellous.

On 20 June 2006 the Dondușeni District prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings, because the libel was not a criminal offence. He instituted administrative proceedings against the applicant, and argued that, by lodging criminal complaints against L. while being aware that similar complaints had previously been rejected as ill-founded by the criminal investigation authorities, the applicant had committed libel (Article 47/2 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The case was remitted for trial.

On 3 August 2006 the Dondușeni District Court found that the applicant had committed libel by making untruthful statements about L. in criminal complaints and court appeals while being aware that all her prior criminal complaints had been rejected as ill-founded. The court did not specify which statements made by the applicant had constituted the libel. The court fined the applicant 500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately thirty euros (EUR)), the maximum provided for by law. The applicant appealed, arguing that she had continued to lodge complaints against L. because she had not agreed with the conclusions of the criminal investigation authority, and that the content of her appeals in insolvency proceedings could not be scrutinized in administrative proceedings.

On 27 September 2006 the Bălți Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Pursuant to Article 47 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 29 March 1985, in force at the time, libel – the deliberate spreading of untruthful and defamatory statements about another person – was punishable by a fine of between MDL 200 and MDL 500 or a period of administrative detention for up to thirty days.

Pursuant to the explanatory decision of t he Supreme Court of Justice no. 11 of 27 March 1997 on the application of the law in force at the material time in defamation cases:

“2. ... courts shall not examine in defamation proceedings complaints concerning the retraction of statements included in ... written or oral applications made to criminal investigation authorities or courts in the context of the examination of another case ...”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that she was convicted of libel for her lawful complaints to criminal investigation authorities and courts.

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? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the domestic case file concerning the defamation proceedings against the applicant.