8.  The applicant, Ms Julieta Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. She is a journalist. 9.  On 2 October 1999 the Russian language newspaper “The New Order” published an article entitled “Traffic Police – My Star” signed by the applicant. The article stated inter alia that:
“...This is quite a banal story for us regular citizens, and a normal phenomenon for the traffic inspectors. In any event, it serves as a good example of the ‘star syndrome’ suffered by the traffic inspectors.
A person was driving his Moskvitch on Stefan cel Mare Street. Let us call him ‘Victor’. When he approached the Stefan cel Mare and Tighina crossroads, the traffic lights turned red and, like any normal person, Victor pressed the brakes. But people who abide by the rules are not always lucky. A luxurious speeding Opel ran into the old Moskvitch. Both cars were damaged, but the Moskvitch was damaged more. Victor stayed at the place of the accident, as any man believing in the strictness of the law would do, awaiting the arrival of the police and their wise and fair verdict. The owner of the ‘Opel’ though, aware of his guilt, hit the gas and disappeared.
Before long a Sergeant of the traffic police arrived and began to take measurements and investigate, making notes in a note book. At the height of the investigation the owner of the Opel arrived, but without his car. He waited until the policeman finished his work, and then said that he would go to the Municipal Traffic Police Centre to solve the problem.
At the Municipal Traffic Police Centre the two car owners and the policeman were received by a person of a venerable age with the epaulets of a Sergeant-Major (later we found out that he worked in the emergency department). The owner of the Opel addressed him in a very friendly way, calling him ‘Jora’. The Sergeant-major Jora approached the young Sergeant, who investigated the accident, and asked him in a way more like an order than a question: ‘How many years have you been working for the Traffic Police?’ – Two years... ‘But I worked for twenty years; therefore you should listen to me. Don’t write anything, let the people come to an agreement themselves and the guilty one (i.e. the owner of the Opel) pay to the second one approximately 30 Moldovan Lei (MDL). In any event his car is a flea-pit, and there is no need to make a lot of fuss.’
The owner of the ‘flea-pit’, who cannot be considered a wealthy man, almost lost the power of speech when he heard that. How was it possible to offer him such a petty sum for his severely damaged car? Since the victim would not agree, Sergeant-Major Jora and the owner of the Opel increased somewhat the amount, bargaining for each leu. Afraid that he would not get anything, Victor agreed to the sum of MDL 75. He later had his car fixed by some acquaintances, who laughed at him for being fooled like a boy. Victor spent a little bit more than MDL 200 for the repair – a sum that might seem ridiculous to some traffic inspectors. For Victor though, this is really big money. But it is not the money, that he’s worried about, but the way he was treated at the Traffic Police Centre, in particular this Sergeant-Major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity. After a few days Victor went to Jora and asked for his driver’s licence back. The Sergeant-Major promised to return the driver’s licence, but only on condition that Victor paid a fine of MDL 18. Victor was dumbfounded. – ‘Why should I pay a fine? What did I do?’ The Sergeant-Major, answered very furiously: ‘Once I say that you should pay, then you should pay, without asking any questions.’
Victor, who was very upset about the absurdity of the situation, warned the policeman that he would complain to his superiors. The Sergeant-Major, understanding that there was no way for him to prevail, literally went ballistic. He threw the driver’s licence in Victor’s face, shouting like a madman.
- ‘He would complain! Who are you? Take your documents and get out of here, and pray God not to come back to the Traffic Police, because otherwise you’ll get into big trouble.’
The man took his driver’s licence and left the Police Station, meditating on what Jora could possibly do to him if ever he came back...” 10.  On an unspecified date in 1999 a policeman named G.R. lodged a civil action for defamation against the applicant and the publishing office of the newspaper with the Centru District Court. Relying on Articles 7 and 7/1 of the Civil Code, the complainant alleged that the article contained statements which were defamatory of him. 11.  Between January and March 2000 several oral hearings were held and several witnesses were heard. The applicant and the newspaper stated that the facts presented in the article were a simple reproduction of the story told by Victor, the victim of the road accident. Victor gave evidence to that effect. They further stated that the information contained in the article was not of a defamatory nature and could not harm in any way the reputation of the complainant, particularly since it did not contain his full name, but only a diminutive of his first name. 12.  By its judgment of 14 March 2000, the Centru District Court found that the information contained in the article was defamatory of G.R. and did not correspond to reality. It argued that in the emergency department of the Municipal Traffic Police there was only one Sergeant-Major Jora, and that he was therefore easily identifiable. In particular, the court quoted the following extracts from the article as being defamatory:
“...this sergeant-major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity.” 13.  The court found that this statement conveyed the idea “that ‘Jora’ was a policeman who could not behave with other people, and who was not a very positive person”.
“The sergeant-major, promised to return the driver’s licence, but only on condition that Victor paid a fine of MDL 18.” 14.  The court found that this statement did not correspond to reality since Victor forgot to take his driving licence. Moreover, Victor could not prove that he was requested to pay a fine.
“He threw the driver’s licence in Victor’s face, shouting like a madman.”
“Take your documents and get out of here, and pray God not to come back to the Traffic Police, because otherwise you’ll get into big trouble.” 15.  The court found that these statements were defamatory of G.R. since they characterised him as a brutal, menacing and vindictive person. Moreover, the applicant did not bring any evidence in support of these statements. The court did not make any note of Victor’s testimony in its judgment. 16.  The court ordered the applicant and the newspaper to pay the complainant non-pecuniary damages of MDL 180 (the equivalent of 14.4 euros (EUR) at the time) and MDL 1,800 (the equivalent of EUR 147 at the time) respectively. It also ordered them to publish a denial of the above statements. 17.  Only the newspaper appealed against this judgment. The applicant lodged a request submitting that she fully agreed with the appeal and that she subscribed to it. 18.  On 30 May 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had not proved the truth of her statements. 19.  The newspaper lodged an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Regional Court. The applicant neither lodged an appeal in cassation nor subscribed to the one lodged by the newspaper. 20.  On 24 October 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in cassation and quashed the judgments of the Centru District Court and of the Chişinău Regional Court in respect of both the newspaper and the applicant. It issued a new judgment, in which it found in favour of G.R.. In its judgment the court found that only the following statements were defamatory and did not correspond to reality:
“...this sergeant-major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity.”
“He threw the driver’s licence in Novac’s face, shouting like a madman.” (Бросил Новаку водительские права в лицо, крича как помешанный) 21.  It ordered the newspaper to publish a denial of the above statements within fifteen days. It ordered the applicant and the newspaper to pay the complainant non-pecuniary damages of MDL 180 and MDL 1,800 respectively. It also ordered both the applicant and the newspaper to pay the court fees of MDL 90.