5.  On 15 November 2002 Flux published an article entitled “The criminal case file of Eugenia Duca, like five kilograms of waste paper”. It reported on the evolution of a high-profile criminal case against a business woman, who was convicted at the time but was later acquitted and compensated for illegal prosecution and detention, and published in italicised script extracts from an open letter sent by her daughter to the President of the country, President of the Parliament, Prime Minister, Council of Europe, OSCE Mission in Moldova and other organisations. In the letter she complained of alleged abuses committed by the prosecution and by the judiciary against her mother. The letter contained, inter alia, the following sentence:
“On 10 July 2001, the Deputy Prosecutor General V.S. (subsequently dismissed for dubious affairs), signed the indictment in Eugenia Duca’s criminal case... and sent it to the Râşcani District Court without her even having seen it.” 6.  On an unspecified date Mr V.S., who in the meantime was demoted, brought civil proceedings for defamation against the newspaper, arguing that the statement about his dismissal for dubious affairs was not true and that it was defamatory of him. 7.  On 12 February 2003 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of Mr V.S., finding the statement that Mr V.S. had been dismissed for dubious affairs to be untrue and defamatory. It also found that V.S. was employed at the time at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal and ordered the newspaper to issue an apology within fifteen days and pay V.S. 2,700 Moldovan lei (178 euros (EUR)). 8.  The applicant newspaper appealed against this judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the article was in fact a dissemination of statements made by Ms Duca’s daughter in her open letter. Relying on Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, the applicant newspaper argued that it could not be punished for disseminating statements made by third parties. 9.  On 29 April 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. It did not examine the arguments advanced by the applicant newspaper concerning the dissemination of statements made by others. The applicant newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law and submitted that the expression “dubious affairs” had been a value judgment. 10.  On 19 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that Mr V.S. had been dismissed from his position by a decision of the Parliament without any reasons being given. It did not examine the applicant newspaper’s arguments about the dissemination of statements made by a third person.