TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant company, a private TV channel operating since 1997 and of Republican coverage, shortly after the change of the government in 2009 became target of attacks from authorities represented by sanctions applied by the audiovisual body, evacuation from rented premises, attempts of limitation of the property rights, refusal of state enterprises to order advertisement, exclusion from the cable transmission space, addressing complaints against the channel by the members of the political parties forming the majority, ignoring the channel according to the unique policy of refusal to offer interviews and comments, defamation of the channel in pro-governmental media.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was the unique TV broadcaster that was applied 11 sanctions and that had ever been withdrawn its license of emission.
AP1 (Applicant): Immediately after the adoption of the disputed decision, the applicant's broadcasting activity was definitely ceased.
AP1 (Applicant): The situation of the broadcaster should be looked at in its complexity, taking into account the imposing of continuous sanctions by the audiovisual coordinating council following conflictual discussions during the meetings.
AP1 (Applicant): The statements and threats to close the channel from the key political figures, together with their refusal to offer interviews and comments to an IT journalists.
AP1 (Applicant): It seems that first persons in the state had no other interest than to be concerned about the fate of the channel.
AP1 (Applicant): Criticism of the news content of the government, diffusion of information on the part of opposition, accusations against the channel of propaganda because of distributing contents in non-official language used by the minority, severity of the sanction imposed, immediate ceasing of its activity.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, it could not be argued the domestic authorities tried to contribute to the quality and balance of programs, as the intention was to punish the TV broadcaster and the journalists for inconvenient editorial policy, disobedience to the majority and offering platform for opposition.
AP1 (Applicant): While it can be understood the representative of position dispose of less instruments to present their views in comparison with the governing parties that have a plenitude of options to do similarly.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, as it results from the documents submitted by the government itself, the president of the audiovisual coordinating council expressly underlined the fact that the channel diffused one hour, 25 minutes information on the activities of the party of communists, half of which in positive tonality.
AP1 (Applicant): While he said other TV posts granted the party only one or two minutes.
AP1 (Applicant): The same president first stated that the channel would declare the council acting as the direction of the government and when following all tendentious penalties, the channel stated it openly called for sanctioning.
AP1 (Applicant): Situation that hints a revenge because of the channel's criticism.
AP1 (Applicant): The channel was also sanctioned by the council at the demand of the party that formed the governing coalition for simply using the phrase NIT under the site of the power and for request of provocative and diverse sarcastic language.
AP1 (Applicant): That sanction of the revocation of the license amounted to a veritable form of censorship intended to discourage the applicant and other media representatives from expressing criticism.
AP1 (Applicant): In the context of a debate on topics of political interest, such a sanction is likely to detour journalists from contributing to public discussion of issues affecting the life of the country.
AP1 (Applicant): It is hampering the media in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog.
AP1 (Applicant): Except two very strong reasons in this regard, the harshest measure of withdrawal of the license of the broadcasting company as a matter of principle could hardly be looked as corresponding to the margin of appreciation afforded to the state according to article 10 as necessary in democratic society and linked to a pressing social need.
AP1 (Applicant): Such a situation by itself is likely to undermine the pluralism of ideas, broad mindedness and openness in a democratic state, which nationals are free to choose the information they wish to be aware of.
AP1 (Applicant): The situation turns even more dramatical when the TV channel which license was withdrawn reflected the views of important parliamentary opposition, was debating crucial issues of public interest as the elections of the president, was important for linguistic minority, was criticizing the government and the latest representatives called openly to its closure.
AP1 (Applicant): Such state of affairs could not be appreciated as corresponding to any value of democracy and the rule of law according to article 10 of the European Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The revocation of applicants license also violated its right guaranteed under article one of protocol number one to the European Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In this respect, the following aspects are to be emphasized.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant company was the single broadcaster sanctioned by the harshest measure with the withdrawal of its license.
AP1 (Applicant): Immediately after that, the entire activity connected to the television ceased.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant could not fulfill its previous agreements on advertisement that prescribed fixed terms of date and hour.
AP1 (Applicant): It resisted direct damages of extremely large amounts.
AP1 (Applicant): It was imposed to terminate prematurely agreements on retransmission of contact acquired from abroad.
AP1 (Applicant): It had to remove from rented premises.
AP1 (Applicant): It lost real possibilities to pay previously contracted credits.
AP1 (Applicant): The staff of the company of about 90 persons lost their jobs and subsequently the basic sources of livelihood.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, the applicant had to wind up its broadcasting business.
AP1 (Applicant): Though the applicant tried for a short period of time to refer to the opportunities provided by the internet, its attempts were completely unsuccessful, either from the perspective of covering audience or the financial dimension.
AP1 (Applicant): At the relevant time, commercial exploiting of the internet had been developing initially in Moldova, and the opportunities provided cannot be compared with the today ones.
AP1 (Applicant): As it could be seen from its YouTube channel to which the government referred, almost six years ago, NET had only 722 subscribers, a number of viewers incomparable with the previous Republican coverage, while the web page became unavailable because of lack of popularity that made senseless its technical and financial maintenance.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the financial dimension, absence of commercial advertisement orders and lack of viewers made the option of using the global network impractical.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, the broadcasting business of the applicant company had no other fate than to vanish following the license withdrawn.
AP1 (Applicant): The company, in order to avoid bankruptcy and to pay loans previously credited for broadcasting, was forced to continue a very narrow and specific business activity not connected to the television, of which incomes, even according to the data presented by the government, were very low.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's right to a fair trial has also been violated, as the domestic courts first rejected the request on suspension of the immediate enforcement of the decision adopted by the coordinating council with no proper reasoning and lacking to quote any relevant legal provision in this regard, to make justice not only to be done, but also to be seen to be done for the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Second, disregarded the opinion on the constitutional court of the Republic of Moldova, according to which the measure of revocation of the license affects the substance of the guarantees, which broadcasters should enjoin to the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The constitutional jurisdiction expressed its opinion with regard to the revocation of the broadcaster's license the time when the applicant's case was still under examination on its merits, and when that option was determinative for the solution of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): The domestic courts ruled the conclusion of the constitutional forum were not applicable in the instant case, as they did not exist at the moment of the adoption of the audiovisual coordinating council's decision, and refused to apply those considerations of directive fact to the dispute, failing to redress the breaches of the applicant's rights committed by the council.
AP1 (Applicant): Actually developing only a formal analysis of the case, despite the right of access to a court to be practical and effective, and not theoretical or illusory.
AP1 (Applicant): The last argument refers to breaches of Article 13 and Article 14, in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 10 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Domestic authorities did not assure an effective remedy to the applicant company to secure its freedom of expression, and showed a discriminatory treatment of immediate seizing of the activity of the channel.
AP1 (Applicant): The way the domestic courts examined the request for interim measures, making reference to no one legal provision, and reducing the necessary reasoning to the consideration that by suspension of the challenge administrative fact, the court will expose its opinion on the merits of the case.
AP1 (Applicant): They let the applicant with no prospect of success to obtain a redress for immediate seize of its broadcasting, and made its right to bring before the courts an arguable claim illusory.
AP1 (Applicant): Additionally, in contrast to the government, the applicant disagrees that it failed to exhaust domestic remedies in regard to the complaint under Article 14.
AP1 (Applicant): As from the very beginning, the company stated on the discriminatory attitude from the audiovisual coordinating council in its regard, and formulated this argument distinctly before the national courts.
AP1 (Applicant): The first instance court gave its appreciation of the merits, however, rejecting the argument.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, in the light of all specific circumstances of this case, I would like to emphasize the provocation of the license of omission of any TV broadcaster raises lots of questions with regard to the compliance of the state authorities' interference to the pluralism of ideas, broad-mindedness, and openness that are inherent for a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): But the specific attitude of the state to a TV channel that is critical for the government is reflecting the views of significant parliamentary and oppositional party, and is of special importance for linguistic minority, gives the unique chance for the government to demonstrate that pluralism of ideas and democracy, which thrives on the freedom of expression, do really exist in the concerned state.
AP1 (Applicant): Regrettably, but in the present case, the government failed to prove so.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President of the court, distinguished members of the court, representatives of the government, thank you for your attention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Miss Nica and I think both parties for their pleadings this morning.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I would like to confirm that both audio and video were clear throughout.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to my colleagues on the bench the judges of the court wishing to present questions. Judge Schukking.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): Thanks to the representative of the parties for their clear interventions.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): I have one question to the government and one question to the applicants.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): As regards my question to the government, as you have pointed out, the revocation of the license was at the end of an uninterrupted series of sanctions.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): You submitted that the council had no choice than to apply the harshest sanction.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): I note that the most severe sanction before revocation that was imposed on NIT was the suspension of the license of five days.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): My question is, did the council have discretionary power to opt for imposing a sanction with a more deterrent effect, such as, for instance, suspension of the license for one month, two months, or three months, thus being less intrusive than the revocation?
Jolien Schukking (Judge): And if so, why did it not make use of that power?
Jolien Schukking (Judge): My question to the applicants is the following.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): Before the domestic courts, NIT argued that the decision to revoke its license was politically driven.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): The domestic courts rejected that allegation as being unsubstantiated.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): Before this court, NIT repeats that allegation.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): In its written submissions, NIT states that, I quote, the political class by all means wanted to find a judicial solution to put an end to the channel's existence.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): And the withdrawal of the license was motivated by political revenge of the government.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): This is a severe allegation.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): And such an allegation could be accepted, but only when it's supported by at least strong and concrete indications.
Jolien Schukking (Judge): My question to you is, could you provide the court with concrete facts that support your allegation that the revocation decision taken by the council in 2012 was politically driven?
Jolien Schukking (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Section President O’Leary.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My questions are for both parties.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The monitoring exercise which led to the revocation decision in this case was commenced on the 29th of March, 2012.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The report was communicated to the applicant only two days later, on the 2nd of April.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): It was discussed by the council with the applicant present on the 5th of April, and the decision was adopted on that same day.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And it came into force on the 6th of April.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): So my question is, is such a rapid administrative procedure normal and in conformity with domestic law?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And I ask this because I note that the Supreme Court referred to a normal administrative procedure taking 15 working days.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My second question relates to monitoring exercises and their consequences generally.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I understand that 13 monitoring exercises took place in the relevant period between 2009 and 2012.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): This question is particularly directed at the government, but the applicant can, of course, respond.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Could the government indicate if sanctions were imposed on other broadcasters during this period?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): They said in their oral submissions that other broadcasters were monitored.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): But what I would like to know is where those broadcasters sanctioned.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): If so, how often and for what?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In the file, I could only find one concrete example.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): That was the public warning given to national television in the decision of the 5th of April, 2012.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Jugde Bårdsen.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): My question is for the government, and it relates to the enforcement of the withdrawal decision.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): And it is a matter of domestic law.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): My first element would be attached to Article 3810 of the Ordovisual Code.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): And at the material time, this provision had the following wording, a decision by the Ordovisual Coordinating Council applying a sanction which is not contested within the allocated time limit shall constitute a writ of enforcement.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): And my question to the government relating to this provision would be if the government could please specify its understanding of that provision at the material time.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): The second element of my question connected to this relates then to the subsequent change of this provision.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): End of May 2012, this provision was abolished, and then we had a new provision in 38.8 with the following wording, the decision of the Ordovisual Coordinating Council regarding the application of any sanction will be motivated becoming enforceable from the date of adoption and notification to the broadcasters and distributors of targeted services by registered letter with subsequent publication.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): My question related to this provision would be what was the motivation behind the adjustment of the text, the changement of the text from the previous article 38.10 to the new 38.8 in May 2012?
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): And the third element of the question relates to the subsequent development.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): The Constitutional Court, as I understand it, found that the new provision, article 38.8, was in violation of the Constitution, and in particular as to the Constitution's provisions on free speech.
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): And my third element, the question here would be what was the core reasoning in the Constitutional Court's judgments as to this finding?
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed. Judge Pavli.
Darian Pavli (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Darian Pavli (Judge): I have two questions for the government, but of course the applicant is very welcome to address them as well.
Darian Pavli (Judge): My first question relates to the formula for the appointment of the audiovisual council.
Darian Pavli (Judge): And I refer here to annex 16 of the government's submissions, which include the Council of Europe analysis and comments on a former draft, so pre-final draft of the audiovisual code, and specifically page 29 of this Council of Europe comments related to then-draft Article 42 of the bill.
Darian Pavli (Judge): And the third comment by the Council of Europe is that the appointment by a 2 3rd majority of parliament, and I quote here, is to be welcome.
Darian Pavli (Judge): It is, however, my understanding that in the final version of the draft, a number of changes were made in line with the Council of Europe recommendations that the 2 3rd majority, which the Council of Europe had welcomed, has been removed altogether from the draft.
Darian Pavli (Judge): And I was wondering if you could elucidate a little bit in terms of the legislative history, why was that decision made?
Darian Pavli (Judge): And in relation to that, in your submission here today orally, you argued that the council had full independence in law and in fact.
Darian Pavli (Judge): And if you could comment on the European Commission's country progress report for 2012, so it's the relevant period, it's a report done annually as part of the European Neighborhood Partnership process of Moldova dated 20 March 2013.
Darian Pavli (Judge): There is a single recommendation there on the media scene in the country, and I quote, ensure the full and effective independence of the audiovisual coordinating council.
Darian Pavli (Judge): So if you could comment on that, please.
Darian Pavli (Judge): And my second question is a little bit of a follow up to Judge Bårdsen third question on the constitutional court ruling of 6 December 2012.
Darian Pavli (Judge): And what I would like to know specifically is what do you think the implications of that ruling, again, that it was unconstitutional for two, in particular, two sanctions imposed by the council, temporary suspension of license and final de-licensing, to be immediately enforceable.
Darian Pavli (Judge): That is my understanding of the constitutional court decision.
Darian Pavli (Judge): What, in your view, are the implications of the decision for the current case?
Darian Pavli (Judge): And I don't mean in terms of national administrative law.
Darian Pavli (Judge): I mean in terms of national constitutional law and Article 10 of the convention.
Darian Pavli (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Vice President Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Thank you very much.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): I'm interested in which way the monitoring exercises are organized.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Are they organized on the regular basis, few times a year, once a year, for how long?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Or they are organized ad hoc?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): It's just a coincidence that this last monitoring exercise that was the basis for the decision was actually at the time when the demonstrations were organized or were about to be organized.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So if you please can answer that.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Then what are the parameters that were taken into consideration then when pluralism was measured?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Was it just content-based parameter?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Or other parameters were taken into consideration because we know there are a number of them, if you could clarify that.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And then what caught my eye today during the presentations was the claim that the members of the commission were subjectively and objectively independent.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And when I was reading the minutes, what caught my eye was, and I will read the sentence of one of the participants.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Moreover, we remember the shows that were made, even regarding me personally, I did not react.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): It was, I consider, abnormal.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So this is something what was reported by the station about him.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): But as history shows, harmful phenomena leave a mark on what is happening.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So if you could comment on conflicts of interest and the possibility of a person to sit in this commission deciding on this case.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Section President Lemmens.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Thank you very much.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I have a follow-up question to what my colleague O'Leary asked about the time taken by the council to come to its decision.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): There was a notification of the report to the applicant on the 2nd of April, I think.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And on the 5th of April, there was the meeting and the decision.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): We can also see that during the domestic proceedings, the applicant company complained about the fact that it did not have enough time to prepare its defense for that meeting.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Could both parties say something about this, whether it is normal not only to have such a short time for the preparation, but in particular, such a short time for the hearing to be set once the monitoring report is being sent to the broadcasting company concerned?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And could the broadcasting company have asked for an adjournment of that meeting?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And would it have any chance of being granted?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Those are the questions asked by the judges.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We will now suspend the hearing for 30 minutes until 11.30 local time, 11.30 sharp.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing will resume with the parties answering the questions of the judges.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): 11.30.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed, and I give the floor to Mr. Rotari for the government's reply.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Please, you have the floor.
GR1 (Government): Thank you Mr. President and thank you Honorable Judges of the Grand Chamber for the questions
GR1 (Government): asked to the government.
GR1 (Government): So I will start by replying to the questions of Judge Shooking about the right to broadcast in general and the sanctions applied.