CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9167BAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#0d0d0d } Published on 28 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 77590/17 Î.C.S. MOLDOVA ZAHĂR S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 25 October 2017 communicated on 9 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s obligation to pay damages and expenses for defamation ordered as a result of allegedly unreasoned judgments. In 2013, the applicant company along with two other companies (C.   and   L.) and the periodical publication „Official Journal” were sued by companies A. and B. (“the plaintiffs”) for defamation, seeking pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage. The plaintiffs claimed that the respondent companies had ordered the publication of an information notice in the Official Journal, stating that the plaintiffs had illegally harvested crops from a village’s plots of land. They considered this information defamatory and denigrating, having negatively affected their image and business reputation. The first instance court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims noting inter alia that: the applicant company did not have any commercial relations with them, and that it neither ordered nor paid for the publication of the impugned information notice. The court further held that the impugned information could not be categorized as defamatory because it was of an informative nature and did not contain tendentious expressions, being based on an ordinance to initiate criminal prosecution even if it was later terminated. T he appellate court quashed the first instance court’s decision and partially granted the plaintiffs’ claims, ordering the respondent companies to pay them pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage plus tax. In doing so, the court noted that the information published had been untrue and seriously affected the honour, dignity and professional reputation of the plaintiffs, without examining who had been responsible for the publication of the notice. On 17 May 2017 that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice and the applicant company’s appeal on the points of law was declared inadmissible. After the initiation of the enforcement procedure, the applicant company being the only solvent company out of the three respondents paid a total of 50,250 euros. The applicant company claimed that it was well known to the plaintiffs that the applicant company was the only solvent company out of the three respondents and that the burden to pay the pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage and other expenses would be borne only by it. The applicant company complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts did not sufficiently reason their judgments which led to a violation of its right to a fair trial and ultimately of its property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts adequately state the reasons on which their decisions were based, notably by giving a specific and express reply to the arguments of the applicant company’s which were decisive for the outcome of the proceedings (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 185-86, 6 November 2018; Tarvydas v.   Lithuania , no.   36098/19, §§ 47-53, 23 November 2021; and Covalenco v.   the Republic of Moldova , no. 72164/14, § 24, 16 June 2020)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, as a result of the judgments adopted, did the applicant company have to bear “an individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision (see Vulakh and Others v. Russia , no. 33468/03, §§ 42-45, 10 January 2012; Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia , no. 39544/05, §§ 250-252, 12 December 2013)?