CASE OF URECHEAN AND PAVLICENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicants were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Chişinău. 6. Both applicants were politicians at the time of the events. The first applicant was mayor of Chișinău and the leader of an opposition political party. The second applicant was a Member of Parliament (“MP”) and member of an opposition party. 7. On 30 November 2004 and 3 March 2007 the then president of the Republic of Moldova Mr V. Voronin (hereinafter “the President”) participated in two television programmes on two privately owned channels, one of which had national coverage. He was interviewed by journalists on various topics such as the economy, justice, foreign relations and elections. The President stated, among other things, that “during the ten years of activity as a Mayor of Chisinau, Mr Urecheanu did nothing but to create a very powerful mafia-style system of corruption”. When referring to the second applicant and to other persons, the President stated that all of them “came straight from the KGB”. 8. Both applicants brought libel actions against the President, seeking a retraction of the impugned statements and compensation. The first applicant sought compensation of 0.1 Moldovan lei (MDL), while the second applicant claimed MDL 500,000 plus payment of her court fees and legal costs. The President’s representative opposed the actions arguing that the impugned statements had been covered by his immunity. 9. On 11 January 2005 the Buiucani District Court discontinued the proceedings in the case lodged by the first applicant on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity and could not be held responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate. The court gave the following reasoning in its decision: “Having examined the materials of the case and heard the parties, in the light of Article 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court considers it necessary to strike out the case. Thus, Article 81 para. 2 of the Constitution provides as follows: ‘The President of the Republic of Moldova shall enjoy immunity. He may not be held legally responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate’. It its judgment Nr. 8 of 16 February 1999 on the interpretation of Article 71 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that legal responsibility encompasses responsibility under criminal, civil and administrative laws. In the same judgment, the Constitutional Court gave an extensive explanation to the expression “opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate” used in Article 71 of the Constitution, holding that it means the point of view, opinions and convictions expressed in the exercise of his mandate in respect of matters and events from public life. In such circumstances of fact and law, the court considers it necessary to strike out the case against the President of the Republic of Moldova, V. Voronin, on the ground that he cannot be held liable under civil law.” 10. On 25 April 2007 the Centru District Court discontinued the proceedings in the case lodged by the second applicant on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity. The court gave the following reasoning in its decision: “Having heard the arguments of the parties and having analysed the materials of the case, the court considers well founded the plea of the representative of the defendant to strike the case out. The Constitution guarantees a large immunity to the chief of the state. Thus, Article 81 para. 2 of the Constitution provides as follows: ‘The President of the Republic of Moldova shall enjoy immunity. He may not be held legally responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate’. For elucidating the limits of this constitutional immunity, the court refers to judgment Nr. 8 of 16 February 1999 of the Constitutional Court. Giving its interpretation to Article 71 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that legal responsibility encompasses responsibility under criminal, civil and administrative laws. The Constitutional Court also gave an explanation to the meaning of the expression ‘opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate’ ruling that it means the point of view, opinions and convictions expressed in the exercise of his mandate in respect of matters and events from public life. From the meaning of the judgment of the Constitutional Court, the court considers that the independence of the opinions of the President of the Republic of Moldova in the exercise of his mandate is absolute and perpetual. In her action lodged with the court, plaintiff V. Pavlicenco relies on Articles 16 and 1422 of the Civil Code and asks for the President of the Republic of Moldova to be held liable under civil law, namely for the opinions expressed by him publically in a programme in the exercise of his mandate. In view of the circumstances described above, bearing in mind the principle of the presidential immunity enjoyed by the President of the Republic of Moldova and of the impossibility to hold him responsible under law, the court comes to the conclusion that the present case must be struck out of the list of cases because in this case the President of Moldova cannot be held liable either by a court or by any other bodies.” 11. Both applicants appealed, arguing that Article 81 § 2 of the Constitution afforded immunity to the President only in respect of opinions he expressed and not in respect of statements of fact. Moreover, they argued that the impugned statements made by the President had not been in connection with the exercise of his official functions, and that the court of first instance had failed to determine whether that had been the case. In support of that argument, the second applicant pointed to the President’s official duties as enumerated in the Constitution, and to the fact that some of the topics discussed during the television programme, such as problems in the economy, foreign affairs and the functioning of parliament, fell outside the scope of the President’s official functions. The second applicant also stressed that the accusation made against her (that she had belonged to the KGB) was very offensive, and had been made by a very important person in the State at a prime-time hour on a channel with national coverage. Even if the President had been exercising his official functions when participating in the television programme, the defamatory accusations made against her could not be considered part of those functions. Both applicants complained that the first-instance decision had unjustifiably limited their right of access to court, in breach of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention. 12. On 3 February 2005 and 14 June 2007 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the judgments at first instance.