TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): According to article 41 of the code of the audiovisual code, enforced at the relevant time, this authority is the guarantor of defending the public interest in the field of audiovisual communication based on democratic principles.
GR1 (Government): In order to establish the independent character of an authority, regard must be taken or it must be had inter alia to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office.
GR1 (Government): The existence of safeguards against external pressure and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence.
GR1 (Government): The council is composed of nine members, mainly journalists that is from the same guild, selected and appointed by the parliament for six years.
GR1 (Government): Those members shall act in their individual capacity and must not represent the authority appointing them.
GR1 (Government): Neither can they hold two consecutive terms of office.
GR1 (Government): Their position is incompatible with any other public or private function and during their term of office, they may not be members of political parties or other political organizations.
GR1 (Government): Thus, it can be concluded that the procedure of electing the council's members presents a very clear appearance of independence.
GR1 (Government): In any case, the applicant company failed to demonstrate how these members could have been externally influenced while examining the question of license withdrawal.
GR1 (Government): The impartiality of a certain body denotes the absence of prejudice or bias.
GR1 (Government): In the applicant company's case, there was no bias or prejudice from the audiovisual council's members.
GR1 (Government): As it may be noted from the minutes of their sessions on examining the monitoring reports, those members always thoroughly debated the applicant company's situation in each and every time.
GR1 (Government): They also carefully assessed the application of each sanction in order for it to correspond to the violation found.
GR1 (Government): It can be also observed from the minutes submitted to the court that even in the absence of a unanimous opinion among those members, their collective decisions were based on the principle of pluralism and of free vote.
GR1 (Government): This is another reason why the government considered the audiovisual council as having acted independently and impartially and nothing denotes that it might have been somehow influenced by the governing political parties.
GR1 (Government): It fulfilled the requirements established by the court in its case law regarding the objective and subjective impartiality.
GR1 (Government): The government rely on the international experts reports submitted on the draft audiovisual code of 2006.
GR1 (Government): It stated that the system for appointment of the council had been amended in line with the comments made based on the best European practices, which required that the members be independent and not political appointees.
GR1 (Government): They also welcomed the introduction of various safeguards regarding the council's independence and by introducing staggered appointments.
GR1 (Government): The government disagree with the applicant company's allegation that the audiovisual council had shown a discriminatory attitude in its respect.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was never discriminated since he was treated like any other TV broadcaster obstructing the rules of play in the audiovisual market.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the applicant statement that the audiovisual council had focused on the frequent monitoring of its television channel is simply untrue.
GR1 (Government): All the reports submitted to the court, as well as the council's monitoring report of 5th of April, 2012, proved that a number of other TV channels with national coverage had also been subjected to monitoring, including the public broadcaster.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the council continued monitoring broadcasters in order to assess whether they complied with this applied sanctions.
GR1 (Government): Hence, the applicants monitoring did not arise from a special treatment, but it was rather an expression of ordinary procedures provided by law to monitor its compliance with the previous warnings and sanctions.
GR1 (Government): That procedure applied to all companies.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the applicant company was not the only one sanctioned for its deeds.
GR1 (Government): Other private channels, TV channels, allegedly affiliated to the governing political parties, were given the same legal treatment by means of warnings and sanctions.
GR1 (Government): For example, the public broadcaster was sanctioned with a public warning for violating the principle of equidistance and favoring several governing parties.
GR1 (Government): The only difference between the applicant company and other TV channels resulted from the former's own conduct.
GR1 (Government): It deliberately disregarded the council's instructions.
GR1 (Government): It never complied with the sanctions while other channels changed their behavior.
GR1 (Government): This led to the ultima ratio sanction, that is the withdrawal that could be equally applied to other companies if they had failed to comply with the council's demands.
GR1 (Government): In this sense, the government wished to recall regarding the applicant company situation that the audiovisual council refrained twice from applying the strictest sanction provided by law.
GR1 (Government): Instead, it decided to apply milder sanctions in hope that the applicant company would comply.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the council neither was discriminatory nor acted in a biased manner.
GR1 (Government): The government further notes that the applicant company complains that the interference into its freedom of expression was not provided by law.
GR1 (Government): It criticized the quality of law on the basis of which its broadcasting license had been withdrawn.
GR1 (Government): The applicant company saw the law rather as inaccessible.
GR1 (Government): Inaccessible, unclear and unforeseeable.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, the applicant company had been in the mass media market for 15 years.
GR1 (Government): 15 years.
GR1 (Government): It cannot be said that the applicant was unaware of the rules and principles that had to be followed in its broadcasting activity.
GR1 (Government): The applicant never invoked the alleged lack of clarity of the law when other sanctions were applied against it.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, concerning the quality of the law, the government reiterate that prior to the adoption of the audiovisual code in 2006, the draft had been sent to international organization for expertise.
GR1 (Government): As a result, after a thorough assessment by international experts, both the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe welcomed the adoption of a new audiovisual code, which was found to comply with European and international standards in this field.
GR1 (Government): The national authorities not only took into consideration, but also fully accepted the experts comments and suggestions included in those reports.
GR1 (Government): In their analysis of the draft audiovisual code, the Council of Europe experts considered that the draft code should be seen as signifying continued progress in terms of legal competence on the part of the drafters, a clear desire to approximate Moldovan broadcasting legislation to European standards, and awareness of the need for legal solutions to challenges facing broadcasting.
GR1 (Government): For that reason, Article 7 of the audiovisual code did not contain any provisions against the international standards in the field of freedom of expression and journalistic independence.
GR1 (Government): In regard to Article 7, Paragraph 2, which the applicant company qualifies as discriminatory, it should be noted that the Council of Europe experts found the principles enshrined therein to be commendable.
GR1 (Government): In addition to the above, in their further report submitted to the national authorities after introducing the amendments and proposals, including in the first report, the OSCE experts stated that the requirement of equal broadcast time can be onerous for broadcasters, especially if there are many political parties.
GR1 (Government): But the basic principle of non-discrimination in this article is good.
GR1 (Government): At its adoption on 27th of July 2006, the audiovisual code already included the suggestions submitted by the international experts and thus fully complied with European standards.
GR1 (Government): Since that was more than welcome, the government understand that the applicant's allegation related to Article 7 of the code are manifestly ill-founded.
GR1 (Government): As to the necessity of the interference into the applicant company's freedom of expression, the government have to disagree with its allegation that it could not have foreseen the application of a more serious sanction as provided by law after a number of more lenient sanctions.
GR1 (Government): In their written submissions, the government underlined that the domestic legislation follows the principle of gradual application of sanctions, from the most lenient to the strictest.
GR1 (Government): The recourse to the last resort, that is the withdrawal, is determined by repetitive breaches and deliberate disrespect.
GR1 (Government): The applicant company was not at its first breach of the audiovisual code.
GR1 (Government): The government considered that the applicant ought to have been alerted when the council sanctioned it by having its license suspended in the first place.
GR1 (Government): However, the applicant ignored the sanction and continued its activity, in fact, showing its deliberate disobedience with the rule of law.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to the applicant's argument, the council did not decide to withdraw its license only on account of a separate incident in the news bulletins between the 3rd and the 9th of February, 2012, or because of the propagandistic short film.
GR1 (Government): Those violations must be taken as part of a bigger picture, and they alone did not lead to the withdrawal of the applicant company's license.
GR1 (Government): Instead, the council decided to withdraw the license because of repeated misconduct for another violation of Article 7, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the audiovisual code.
GR1 (Government): In fact, since March 2009 until April 2012, when its license was withdrawn, the council applied 18 sanctions to the applicant company.
GR1 (Government): The latter was sanctioned inter alia for violating TV advertising rules, for infringing the rules on broadcasting, violating TV advertising rule, for infringing the rules on broadcasting in the official language, including for violation of the principle of political police enshrined in Article 7 of the audiovisual code, and for favoring a single political party during its news bulletins.
GR1 (Government): The government wished to draw the court's attention to the fact that the applicant challenged before the domestic courts only nine of the 18 sanctions applied to it.
GR1 (Government): The national courts only admitted three of the applicant's nine appeals because of some procedural shortcomings, whereas the substance of the council's decisions was never questioned.
GR1 (Government): To sum up, the applicant company had 15 final and valid sanctions at the moment when the audiovisual council decided to finally withdraw its broadcasting license.
GR1 (Government): The government emphasized that seven of those 15 sanctions, almost half of them, referred to the same violation of Article 7 of the audiovisual code, that is for disregarding the principle of political pluralism in the news bulletins and for favoring one single political party.
GR1 (Government): It should be also noted that the applicant never challenged before the domestic courts nine sanctions established by the audiovisual council.
GR1 (Government): Three of them were applied precisely in regard to violations concerning the same political pluralism in the news bulletins.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the applicant company has never challenged any other sanctions and judgments adopted against it, except for the last one before this European court.
GR1 (Government): It follows that the applicant simply agreed with those.
GR1 (Government): Additionally, the audiovisual council applied all these sanctions in a gradual way, as provided by Article 38, Paragraph 3 of the audiovisual code.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the applicant company ought to have reasonably expected one day that, well, the application of the strictest punishment provided by the audiovisual code, given its repeated misconduct and continuous disregard of the warnings and milder sanctions previously applied to it, which had no deterrent effect on it whatsoever.
GR1 (Government): In conclusion, the government considered that the withdrawal of the applicant company's broadcasting license was a measure provided by law, whose quality complied with all of the requirements arising from the court's case law.
GR1 (Government): The applicant had to predict the occurrence of this measure, given its continuous noncompliance with the provisions of the audiovisual code, following the application of ineffective milder sanctions, as well as its disregard for the audiovisual council as a guarantor of the public interest in the audiovisual field.
GR1 (Government): That measure could be reasonably seen as answering a pressing social need because of the abusive speech communicated repeatedly during the news bulletins, despite the numerous previous sanctions.
GR1 (Government): In these circumstances, the public interest prevailed over the applicant company's right to impart information, since the consequences of the applicant's actions might have been unpredictable.
GR1 (Government): The government finally concluded that by withdrawing the applicant company's broadcasting license, the national authorities observed the requirements of necessity and proportionality acted in an appropriate manner in accordance with the law, with utmost consistency, given the general interest at stake of ensuring quality and balance of the broadcasted programs.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the government invite the court to hold that there have been no violations of the convention in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Those are our submissions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Rotari.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to the representative of the applicant, Ms. Nica.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): You have the floor, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President of the Court,
AP1 (Applicant): distinguished members of the Court, representatives of the government, it is a pleasure and an honor to present today the position of the applicant company, NIT, with regard to violations of its fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
AP1 (Applicant): In the present case, the applicant's company rights protected under Article 10, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
AP1 (Applicant): Article 6, Article 13, and Article 14, in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 10 of the Convention, had been grossly violated by the responding state following the revocation of the broadcasting license.
AP1 (Applicant): By doing so, the Republic of Moldova disrespected the basic standards of the freedom of expression and disregarded the key role of the media in a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): I will focus my speech on several arguments to prove the responding government went beyond the margin of appreciation afforded to the state according to the Convention in such matters.
AP1 (Applicant): In cases referring to the media where Article 10 is at stake, a starting point there should be taken the fundamental truism.
AP1 (Applicant): There can be no democracy without pluralism.
AP1 (Applicant): It is of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political programs to be proposed and debated, even those that call into question the way a state is currently organized, that offend, shock, or disturb if they do not harm the democracy itself.
AP1 (Applicant): Problems in relation to the independence of the Moldovan media are of old and endemic character.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the openly available report drafted by the NGO Reporters Without Borders, the Republic of Moldova is decreasing with obvious regularity's position.
AP1 (Applicant): In 2013, the year when the final court judgments were ended in the Easton case, ranking the distant 55, and in 2019 turning even worse, ranking 91, with a coefficient which means visible problems.
AP1 (Applicant): The report underlined the broadcasting regulatory authority's lack of independence continues to be a source of concern.
AP1 (Applicant): The opinion of the well-known NGO in this regard correlate with the position of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova that on the decision of 8 June 2019 for the adoption of the Declaration on the Recognition of the Captive Character of the State, expressed a vote of non-confidence in the leadership of the Odovisual Council, which has become an instrument of the regime and called for imperative dismissal of the members of the council.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant television station was liquidated by state authorities, derogating totally from national and international legal norms.
AP1 (Applicant): It was closed because it was disturbing and critical, because it was saying the truth, inconvenient for the government.
AP1 (Applicant): The TV broadcaster was closed as it follows from me the contents of the monitoring report and the challenge decision of the Odovisual Coordinating Council, specifically for presenting the governing coalition in a negative light, reflecting the conflict between the governing coalition and the party of communists of the Republic of Moldova in minority, presenting the party of communists in a preponderant positive connotation, diffusion of the short film that represented a journalistic point of view, underlying miscarriages committed by the government that were disappointing for people of the country.
AP1 (Applicant): The interference in the applicant's freedom of expression under the form of withdrawal of broadcasting license was neither prescribed by law nor pursued at a legitimate aim, was not necessary in a democratic society, being disproportional.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the issue of law, the immediate cease of the applicant's activity the following day the decision of the Odovisual Coordinating Council was adopted, had been operated according to an unclear legal framework.
AP1 (Applicant): As no one legal norm in force at the relevant time, envisage the immediate enforcement of the decision of the council that was challenged in court.
AP1 (Applicant): It has to be noted that constitutional court of the Republic of Moldova did not consider the norms that prescribed the immediate enforcement of the decision of the Odovisual Coordinating Council on sanctioning of broadcasters by revocation of the license is corresponding to the criteria of accessibility, clarity and forcibility of the law.
AP1 (Applicant): Additionally, article 7.2 of the Odovisual Code
AP1 (Applicant): that instituted to the broadcasters the obligation to grant airtime for all parliamentary and political parties, and that had been invoked as ground for the applicant's license being withdrawn, is infringing the essence of the freedom of expression of the broadcaster, as it interferes with the right to impart information and ideas and obstructs the debate on matters of public interest.
AP1 (Applicant): This norm is not foreseeable in its application.
AP1 (Applicant): While the applicant can admit that such a particular provision might apply to state or to public broadcasters on which more specific obligation can be placed, at which dispose of distinct means to reach all political parties' information and to obtain their opinion or comment, in case of private broadcasters, especially expressing critical views to the government, such a requirement can be used in order to discriminate and to put them in a hardship situation.
AP1 (Applicant): That legal provision places an excessive burden on the applicant company.
AP1 (Applicant): Notably, if reiterating that representatives of the parliamentarian parties formed the majority and key political figures of the time showed a negative attitude to the channel and with constant regularity, refused to answer questions and to give comments to its journalists.
AP1 (Applicant): The question of peculiarities of the editorial policy of private broadcasters in contrast to public ones had repeatedly arisen at the meetings of the Udo-Visual Coordinating Council, as it results even from the documents submitted by the government.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the Udo-Visual specialized body had refrained to scrutinize that distinction.
AP1 (Applicant): The revocation of applicants license did not pursue any legitimate aim, as the interference within the applicants freedom of expression had a punitive character, being substantiated by the news that were displeasing the government, presenting the letter as the council itself emphasized in a denigrating manner and accusing it.
AP1 (Applicant): The channel did not reflect critics of the personal position of the coalition representatives, but specifically related to their behavior as key figures that do politics in the state.
AP1 (Applicant): The limits of acceptable criticism are wider as regard to politician as such than as regards a private individual.
AP1 (Applicant): Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large.
AP1 (Applicant): And he must display a greater degree of tolerance.
AP1 (Applicant): The requirements of protection of a politician have to be weighed in relation to the interest of open discussion of political issues.
AP1 (Applicant): So the aim of protection of the reputation or rights of the others can be admitted as relevant in the case.
AP1 (Applicant): Similar, it could not be said the aim of the measure was protection of the national security and public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, as the applicant never called directly or indirectly to protests, the incentive coming from the political party, while the broadcaster namely reported news.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant company disagrees with the position of the government and underlines absence of similarities with the case Zurich versus Turkey.
AP1 (Applicant): As the report that is transmitted by the applicant never incited to violence or provocation of hostilities among different groups, but highlighted the situation existing at that moment in the country.
AP1 (Applicant): Additionally, it is difficult to sense to what extent the diffusion of news by the channel, even admitting third persons exercising their fundamental right in shrink in article 11 of the convention, called for peaceful and democratic methods for the mission of the government, the solution of the parliament and determination of the date of new elections could be considered as infringing national security or territorial integrity.
AP1 (Applicant): In any case, it is incumbent on the press to impart information and ideas on political issues, including divisive ones.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, the alleged violence and hostilities to which the applicant called in the government's view had never took place in reality.
AP1 (Applicant): Meetings organized by the party in opposition being peaceful.
AP1 (Applicant): The interference in the applicant's right guaranteed in article 10 was not necessary in a democratic society either.
AP1 (Applicant): On the contrary, interdemined the main foundations of democracy, spirit of pluralism and the rule of law.