Published on 23 May 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 10870/15
Iurie IORDAN
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 23 February 2015
communicated on 3 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged lack of protection for the applicant’s reputation against defamation. In particular, the applicant is a judge and in 2013 a journalist filmed him outside the court where he worked. The video footage showed him receiving an envelope from two persons. The journalist commented the video footage implying that the applicant had taken money from that envelope and that it was a bribe. The video was aired the same day on a local television. The applicant and the persons featuring in the video footage, which were the applicant’s brother and sister-in-law, lodged a complaint with the police against the journalist accusing him of slander. On 17 September 2014 the administrative proceedings against the journalist were discontinued on the ground that he had exercised his freedom of expression and there was no evidence that he had known at the time that his assumptions about bribe‑taking were untruthful. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the criminal complaint against the journalist an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision (see Yakup Saygılı v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42914/16, § 39, 11 July 2017; mutatis mutandis, Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (nos. 5 and 6), nos. 6991/08 and 15084/08, §§ 33-34, 14 September 2010 )?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017, Lavric v. Romania, no. 22231/05, §§ 34-49, 14 January 2014, and Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, §§ 52-56, 30 March 2010)?