FLUX v. MOLDOVA (no. 7) - 25367/05 [2009] ECHR 1931 (24 November 2009)

FLUX v. MOLDOVA (no. 7) - 25367/05 [2009] ECHR 1931 (24 November 2009)

The applicant newspaper acted professionally and in good faith, attempted to verify facts, reported on a matter of genuine public interest, and clearly informed readers about the unverifiable nature of the information. The interference with its right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10 ECHR.

Citation
[2009] ECHR 1931
Parties
Applicant Newspaper: Flux; Respondent State: Republic of Moldova
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
24 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 ECHR found; application admissible.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Press Rights
Human Rights Civil Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Press Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flux

Applicant Newspaper

Republic of Moldova

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sanctioning the applicant newspaper for publishing an article violated its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant newspaper acted professionally and in good faith, attempted to verify facts, reported on a matter of genuine public interest, and clearly informed readers about the unverifiable nature of the information. The interference with its right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 ECHR found; application admissible.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 12.25 for pecuniary damage.
  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.