Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 89
September 2006
Manole and Others v. Moldova (dec.) - 13936/02
Decision 26.9.2006 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Censorship allegedly imposed on journalists at the only television and radio station with nation-wide coverage: admissible
The applicants are or were television journalists at the “Teleradio-Moldova” State company which runs the only Moldovan public television channel and radio station with nationwide coverage. According to the applicants the company has been subjected to censorship throughout its entire existence. However, after February 2001, when the Communist Party won a large majority in the parliamentary elections, the censorship allegedly became unbearable. It was usually imposed in the form of an oral instruction by means of a hierarchical order coming from the President of the company to the editors.
From January to May 2002 the parliamentary faction of the Christian Democratic People’s Party organised daily massive demonstrations in front of the seat of the Government, gathering tens of thousands of protesters. During a long period of time it was forbidden to give any information in the news bulletins about these events. At the end of February 2002 more than three hundred members of the Company’s staff signed a declaration of protest against the censorship. On that day, for the purposes of the evening news bulletin, one of the applicants was replaced by another journalist as a result of his refusal to present a censored version of the news about the protests in front of the Company headquarters. Military personnel were present in the studio. The news crew’s attempt to broadcast the uncensored version of the feature report failed as the news bulletin was interrupted after a few minutes and replaced with a documentary film.
The staff of the company decided to go on a passive strike and elected a Strike Committee which submitted to the administration of the company and to the Government a list of demands regarding the abolition of censorship. At the same time the editors and news-casters, despite pressure from the administration of the company, started to present “uncensored” news. The President of the Republic of Moldova met the representatives of the Strike Committee. He dismissed any accusations of political involvement in the company’s activity. But he allegedly promised to put an end to the censorship there. He also rejected the request to offer the opposition one hour of air-time, on the ground that their protests were illegal.
During a news bulletin one of the applicants informed the audience about the censorship of the news and showed the script of the news with the struck out passages signed by his superior. Immediately, the head of the News Department ordered the sound technician to cut the sound. The applicant spoke for two minutes without any sound.
Later on, a state of emergency was introduced at the company and military troops were moved onto its premises. One after another the leaders of the strike movement began to be dismissed by different methods from their positions and to be subjected to disciplinary sanctions. The company refused to enforce the court judgment cancelling the sanctions imposed on one of the applicants. In March and April 2002 the leaders of the Strike Committee were questioned by criminal investigators about the protests organised by them in front of the company building.
In 2002 Parliament enacted Law by which the “Teleradio-Moldova” became a “Public Company”. According to the new law, the staff of the old company had to pass an examination in order to be employed at the Public Company. The examination was organised in 2004. According to the results, none of the applicants who had worked at the news department were confirmed in his or her job; nor were the majority of the persons who had been active during the 2002 strike. The journalists who had not been hired organised a press conference at which they advanced the idea that they had been dismissed for political reasons. A feature report about that press conference which had been scheduled for the evening news bulletin was replaced with a documentary. On the same date, the President of the new company issued an order by which the participants at the press-conference were suspended and banned from entering the premises of the company. Some of the applicants complained to the Court of Appeal about the unlawfulness of the examination. The Court dismissed their action on the grounds of its lack of competence.
Admissible. The Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was joined to the merits.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy