FLUX v. MOLDOVA - 28702/03 [2007] ECHR 954 (20 November 2007)

FLUX v. MOLDOVA - 28702/03 [2007] ECHR 954 (20 November 2007)

The interference with the applicant's freedom of expression did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not necessary in a democratic society, given the nature of the statements, the passage of time, the lack of evidence from the plaintiff, and the disproportionate penalty imposed.

Citation
[2007] ECHR 954
Parties
Applicant Newspaper: Flux; Respondent State: Republic of Moldova; Plaintiff in Domestic Proceedings: Mr V. Stepaniuc
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
20 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 found; no separate examination of Article 6 complaint; partial award of damages and costs.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Fair Trial, Remedies
Human Rights Civil Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Fair Trial Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flux

Applicant Newspaper

Republic of Moldova

Respondent State

Mr V. Stepaniuc

Plaintiff in Domestic Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 was violated by domestic defamation proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for their judgments under Article 6

Ratio Decidendi

The interference with the applicant's freedom of expression did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not necessary in a democratic society, given the nature of the statements, the passage of time, the lack of evidence from the plaintiff, and the disproportionate penalty imposed.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 found; no separate examination of Article 6 complaint; partial award of damages and costs.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant newspaper EUR 278 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses within three months, converted to national currency at settlement date.
  • Simple interest payable on above amounts at European Central Bank marginal lending rate plus three percentage points from expiry of three months until settlement.