5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant newspaper, may be summarised as follows. 6.  In early March 2004 a warehouse belonging to the Parliament in Chişinău was converted into four apartments. On 18 March 2004 Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Member of Parliament, asked the Parliament leadership to allow him access to information on whether the manner in which deputies from the four parliaments elected since the date of Moldova's independence had been provided with accommodation from public money had been correct. He did not obtain access to that information. 7.  On 9 April 2004 the applicant newspaper published an article entitled “Four more communists have obtained housing on our money”. The article informed readers about the four apartments built in the former Parliament warehouse. The journalists visited the apartments and saw workers carrying out final repairs in them. They were almost ready since the pipes and water meters had already been installed. The author added that:
“According to certain sources in Parliament, who have asked to remain anonymous, the future owners of the relevant apartments include V.S., the president of the communist faction in Parliament, C.G., head of the Parliament apparatus, and M.R., the president of Floreşti county.” 8.  The article went on to state that the newspaper had tried to verify this information by telephoning V.S. on his mobile phone and at work but could not find him, his secretary answering that he was busy. Attempts to contact the Speaker of Parliament or her adviser, as well as the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, had also been unsuccessful. Mr Ş. Secăreanu, Member of Parliament, informed the newspaper that he had been told by C.G. and M.C., another deputy speaker in Parliament, that Parliament had paid for the apartments. 9.  The article went on to recount further efforts to discover information about the source of the funding for the four new apartments from other State officials, including C.G., none of whom could be contacted. The newspaper concluded that none of the State officials had given it the opportunity to verify the information regarding the future owners of the apartments. It also mentioned that three years earlier E.O., a speaker of parliament and member of the then ruling party had obtained, in a similar manner, an apartment measuring 200 square metres in the same former warehouse. The article then described Mr Secăreanu's efforts to obtain information on the expenditure of Parliament and the Presidency from the President of the Court of Accounts, information which had been made secret by the latter, as well as his efforts to obtain that information from the Parliament leadership. The article concluded by referring to Mr Cubreacov's request of 18 March 2004 (see paragraph 6 above) and his attempt in 2002 to obtain similar information. Two photographs of the exterior and the interior of the apartments were inserted into the text of the article. 10.  On 5 May 2004 V.S. initiated court proceedings against the applicant newspaper, claiming that he had been defamed by the article and notably by the phrase cited above (see paragraph 7 above). 11.  The applicant newspaper submitted to the first-instance court that it had published the opinions of third parties on an issue of major public interest, opinions to which it had not subscribed. It also referred to the journalist's unsuccessful attempts to verify the information by telephoning V.S. and other officials, and the refusal of the Parliament leadership to make public information as to who owned the apartments. In addition, the plaintiff had proved his bad faith by failing, at least once, to appear before the court or delegate a representative, and by failing to ask the applicant newspaper to publish a correction or reply before initiating court proceedings. The applicant newspaper finally submitted that V.S. had initiated 15 defamation suits against it, showing little tolerance of criticism despite his role as a prominent politician. 12.  On 7 June 2004 the Buiucani District Court accepted V.S.'s claims in full, awarding him 30,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (2,046 euros (EUR) at the time), and ordered the applicant newspaper to publish an apology. The court found that the relevant phrase (see paragraph 7 above) was defamatory of V.S. and that the applicant newspaper had not submitted any evidence to prove that the information published about V.S. was true. 13.  The applicant newspaper appealed, relying on arguments similar to those formulated earlier. It added that the first-instance court had rejected its arguments without giving any specific reason, which had deprived the applicant newspaper of the right to lodge an effective appeal against the judgment. It also argued that the court had awarded a significant amount of compensation despite V.S.'s failure to prove the nature and extent of the damage caused to him, the court not having heard V.S. or his representative. 14.  At the same time as it lodged its appeal, the applicant newspaper also challenged Judge C., who was in charge of the case at the Chişinău Court of Appeal. The grounds for the challenge were that Judge C. had already decided three cases between the same parties and had found in favour of V.S. each time, without giving any relevant reasons. He had also examined other defamation cases brought by politicians or public figures against the applicant newspaper, with the same outcome. Moreover, several of those judgments had subsequently been quashed or amended by the Supreme Court of Justice. Finally, it claimed that Judge C. was a relative of a member of the Communist faction in Parliament and that he had been appointed to his position by the President of Moldova, who was also the leader of the Communist Party of Moldova. 15.  Referring to the lack of proof that Judge C. was a relative of a Member of Parliament, as claimed by the applicant newspaper, a judge of the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant newspaper's challenge to Judge C. 16.  On 16 September 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal, presided by Judge C., quashed the first-instance court's judgment in the part concerning the award made, reducing it to MDL 15,000 to reflect the real level of harm caused to V.S. The court found that the applicant newspaper had published information which it could not prove to be true and which was defamatory of V.S. 17.  In an appeal in cassation against both the decision rejecting its challenge to Judge C. and the judgment on the merits, the applicant newspaper repeated the arguments it had raised before the two lower courts. It added that when its challenge to Judge C. had been rejected, only one of three grounds invoked had been examined by the Judge at the Chişinău Court of Appeal. The applicant newspaper asked for the decision rejecting its challenge to Judge C. to be quashed since it had proved that its doubts about his impartiality were reasonably entertained. 18.  On 9 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice found that the lower courts had correctly determined the defamatory and untrue nature of the statements made about V.S. but reduced the award of compensation to MDL 5,000 (EUR 300). 19.  The applicant newspaper submitted to the Court a record of the domestic court hearings at the first two levels of jurisdiction, which allegedly showed that the courts had not asked any questions bearing on the substance of the case, had limited themselves to taking the mandatory procedural steps and had not attempted to clarify or verify any of the arguments or evidence submitted by the applicant newspaper. 20.  According to the applicant newspaper, C.G., one of the persons mentioned in the paragraph cited above, is currently living in one of the apartments discussed in the article. The Government did not comment.