CASE OF NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Hearing: NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 28470/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-10-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28470/12
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2022-04-05 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0405JUD002847012
Respondent state: MDA
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2;35;35-3-a;P1-1;P1-1-2
Judges: Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković;María Elósegui
Represented by: RĂILEANU A. ; CURUCI Z. ; BĂLAN P.
Issue: Articles 7, 10, 23, 27, 28, 38, 40 of the Audiovisual Code 2006 ; Section 21 of the Law on administrative court proceedings ; Law no. 451-XV/2001 on regulating entrepreneurial activity through licensing

Strasbourg case-law cited: Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, § 61, ECHR 2001 VIII;ATV Zrt v. Hungary, no. 61178/14, § 39, 28 April 2020;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 87 88, 7 February 2012;Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 50, 29 March 2016;Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 115-116, 13 December 2016;Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no. 26132/95, § 52, ECHR 2000 IV;Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 112, ECHR 2000 I;Bimer S.A. v. Moldova, no. 15084/03, § 49, 10 July 2007;Björk Eiðsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 46443/09, § 69, 10 July 2012;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999 III;Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, § 108, 26 March 2020;Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 139, ECHR 2015 (extracts);Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, §§ 62 74, 8 October 2013;Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 116-119, ECHR 2004 XI;Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 120, ECHR 2015;Demuth v. Switzerland, no. 38743/97, § 33, ECHR 2002 IX;Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 105, 3 October 2017;Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, §§ 47 and 51, Series A no. 192;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 54, ECHR 1999 I;Gaunt v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 26448/12, § 47, 6 September 2016;Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II;Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 67, ECHR 2004 I;Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 96, Series A no. 244;Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, 24 November 1993, §§ 32 and 38, Series A no. 276;Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99 and 2 others, §§ 81 94, ECHR 2005‑VI;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, §§ 31-35, Series A no. 298;Kaperzyński v. Poland, no. 43206/07, § 66, 3 April 2012;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 132-136, 17 May 2016;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000 XI;Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 110 and 115, ECHR 2015;Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005 XI;Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I;Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary [GC], no. 201/17, § 94, 20 January 2020;McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-III;MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011;Murphy v. Ireland, no. 44179/98, § 74, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts);Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004 XI;Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-II;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010;Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 142, 27 June 2017;Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 64, 16 November 2004;Societatea Română de Televiziune v. Moldova (dec.), no. 36398/08, 15 October 2013;Špaček, s.r.o., v. the Czech Republic, no. 26449/95, § 57, 9 November 1999;Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52;Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, §§ 104-146, ECHR 2007 V;Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 IV;Tierbefreier E.V. v. Germany, no. 45192/09, § 58, 16 January 2014;Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 88, 1 March 2007;Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, §§ 53-55, Series A no. 159;Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited and Others v. Malta, no. 37326/13, § 79, 15 May 2018;Urechean and Pavlicenco v. the Republic of Moldova, nos. 27756/05 and 41219/07, § 20, 2 December 2014;Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, § 96, 25 October 2012;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2012
External sources: Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec (2007)2 on media pluralism and diversity of media content
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)
Separate opinion: TRUE