CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 May 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57669/16 Valeriu CRUDU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 27 September 2016 communicated on 5 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for imparting on TV videos of child abuse by the child’s mother, taken with a hidden camera in a private space. While in divorce proceedings, the applicant continued to live in the same flat but in separate rooms with his ex-wife M. and their child born in 2003. The applicant installed a hidden camera in M.’s room, allegedly to protect his belongings from theft. Reviewing the recordings, in 2013 he discovered that M. had repeatedly beaten their son with a belt. Criminal proceedings on charges of domestic violence against M. were initiated in December 2013, discontinued in 2014 as the prosecutor had concluded that no damage had been inflicted to the child, but subsequently reopened. At the same time, on 19 December 2013 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of illegal covert video recording (Section 177 (1 1 ) of the Criminal Code). On 25 July 2014 the applicant participated in a TV show, talking about the child abuse committed by M. and the passivity of the law enforcement authorities who relied on a psychological assessment finding that the beatings had not had any negative impact on the child. The TV show presented the views of other psychologists who stressed the negative impact of physical abuse on children. The video content depicting M. beating the applicant’s son, with their faces blurred, were broadcasted during the show. An investigation by the Broadcasting Council concluded that the TV channel had not broadcasted any personal data, as M. and the child were not identifiable. On 20 August 2014 a second set of criminal proceedings was initiated against the applicant for disseminating private video content without consent (Section 177 (2) of the Criminal Code). The criminal cases against the applicant were joined and on 28 March 2016, the Chișinău Court of Appeal finally convicted the applicant on both counts. It exempted him of criminal liability on the first count due to the expiry of the statute of limitations, sentenced him for dissemination of private life information to a fine of 350   euros (EUR), reduced in half if paid within 72 hours, and obliged him to compensate M. and the child for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered in the total amount of EUR 1,350. The domestic courts concluded that the decision of the Broadcasting Council concerned only the TV channel and had no bearing on the applicant’s situation. The applicant complains under   Articles 6 and 10   of the Convention that his criminal conviction infringed his right to impart information on a matter of general interest, namely the physical abuse of his child by the other parent, and that the domestic courts had failed to carry out a fair assessment. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 10   §   2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities carry out a balancing exercise of the right to freedom of expression against the right to respect for private life in compliance with Article 10 of the Convention (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 78-95, 7 February 2012; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§   108-13, ECHR 2012)?