REPORT On the Situation of the Press in in 2008 From the Perspective of Observing the Freedom of Expression and the Right to Access to Information1

1 The report is available in Romanian, Russian and English. It was prepared by the Media Law Unit of the Independent Journalism Center, with the financial support of the Open Society Institute and the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Independent Journalism Center and do not necessarily represent those of the sponsors.

1 Contents

I. Freedom of expression

1. Legislative developments 2. The situation of the press 3. The situation in broadcast media 4. Media at the European Court of Human Rights

II. The right to information: legislative developments

III. Abuse of journalists in 2008

2 I. Freedom of expression

1. Legislative developments The year 2008 was a fruitful one from the point of view of legislative developments. 2008 saw the resignation of the Tarlev government and the establishment of the Greceanîi government, strains in the relationship between Moldova and , pre-election tension and also legislative amendments unfavorable to the opposition. In order to align the national legal framework with international standards, the legislation on freedom of expression underwent significant changes; however, certain amendments and legislative initiatives were not in line with those standards.

Law No. 25-XVI on the Code of Conduct of Civil Servants was adopted on 22 February 2008. Article 8 paragraph (3) of this law forbids civil servants from communicating with journalists on behalf of their institutions if they are not empowered to do so by law. While certain members of parliament (MPs) contended that this provision did not prevent civil servants from expressing their personal opinions in the media, it was interpreted literally by civil servants who then categorically refused to speak to journalists referring them instead to their institutions’ public relations services. In reports on monitoring access to information in public institutions, civil society representatives agreed that this provision impeded the freedom of expression of civil servants and thus of journalists’ access to information which was already extremely restricted.

In June 2008, parliament adopted an amendment to the Law on Editorial Activities. According to the information note attached to the draft law submitted by the Ministry of Culture, those amendments aimed to impede, “the appearance of literature forbidden by Article 32 (3) of the Constitution,” i.e., literature that denied and/or slandered the state and the people; that incited wars of aggression or national, racial or religious hatred; that incited discrimination, territorial separatism or public violence or that threatened constitutional order. The directors of the most important publishing houses in Moldova as well as writers and non-government organizations (NGOs) criticized the draft law for encouraging censorship even though the same law actually forbids censorship. As a consequence, the article was adopted in a shorter form containing only a general interdiction against publishing, “…works that contradict the legislation in force.” The purpose of the amendment was, in fact, to censor literature published in Moldova. The South East Europe Media Organization published a press release in which it expressed its concerns about the amendment stating that it encouraged self-censorship.

The advisory opinion of the Constitutional Court on the draft law amending Article 32 of the Moldovan Constitution should be noted in this context. In November 2007, the Moldovan government approved a legislative initiative in which it proposed that parliament exclude the phrase “denying and slandering the state and the people” from this article. In December 2008 by a vote of five judges, the Constitutional Court issued a

3 negative advisory opinion on the government’s initiative stating that excluding the phrase would violate constitutional provisions on the sovereign, independent and united character of the state and would diminish citizens’ guarantees of their rights and fundamental freedoms. In addition, the Court considered that excluding this phrase would not contribute to a more efficient exercise of the freedom of expression and specified in its opinion that the lack of legal provisions forbidding actions aimed at denying and slandering the state would jeopardize the country’s sovereignty and its constitutional order. Although this initiative is part of the 2004–2008 National Action Plan on Human Rights, we expect that because of this negative opinion, parliament will not adopt the draft law submitted by the government. Thus, the danger of arbitrary interpretations by public authorities of statements of discontent or doubt or of opinions expressed by individuals while exercising their freedom of expression still persists.

In this regard, the draft law for amending paragraph 8 of Article 16 of the Moldovan Civil Code No.1107-XV of 6 June 2002 submitted to parliament on the initiative of the President on 12 June 2008 is instructive. The draft provided for excluding the words “and moral” from the first sentence and for deleting the second sentence in full so that simply publishing a refutation would serve as compensation for any moral damages caused to plaintiffs in cases of libel or slander. Civil society and international organizations responded promptly to this proposal. In an open letter, Moldovan media NGOs requested that MPs reject this draft law because its adoption would encourage defamatory statements, would generally degrade the quality of public debates and would lead to disinformation in the media and to violations of citizens’ right to information. ARTICLE 192 based in London recommended that civil provisions that allow pecuniary compensation for moral damages caused to one’s reputation not be excluded from Moldovan legislation. Due to civil society’s efforts, the draft law on amending Article 16 was not included on the agenda of parliamentary debates.

In July 2008, the Ministry of the Interior submitted a draft law to parliament on preventing and combating offences committed on information technology systems, but it has not yet been discussed. According to the information note, this law is needed due to the increase in the number of such offences worldwide as well as in Moldova. The draft law refers to users of information technology and to service providers in Moldovan cyber space and establishes the authorities that are competent to prevent and combat offences therein. At the same time, it obliges service providers to document information traffic data and to keep it for 120 days. This law raises the danger that government authorities could arbitrarily interpret statements made in Moldovan cyber space which would significantly discourage freedom of expression.

Celebrating Journalist’s Day on 12 June in memory of journalist Constantin Chiroúco was established by a government decision. The proposal for establishing

2 ARTICLE 19 is a human rights organization with a specific mandate and focus on the defence and promotion of freedom of expression and freedom of information worldwide. It took its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

4 Journalist’s Day was launched by Fidel Galaicu, editor of the state agency Moldpres (funded by the government). Moldovan journalists thus now have two special days: 3 May when International Press Day is celebrated and 12 June. The independent media think that the goal of celebrating June 12 was to divide journalists into two camps.

2. The situation of the press

In 2008, the Moldovan press was on the agenda of a number of national and international institutions. The issue of press freedom was seriously addressed by state dignitaries and by high-ranking European officers in various meetings and conferences. The approaching election campaign served as an impetus for nationwide debates about press freedom.

In its study “The 100 Most Important Problems in Moldova in 2008,” the Institute for Development and Social Initiatives “Viitorul” (IDIS “Viitorul”) found that the situation in mass media had deteriorated compared with previous years. Also, the organization said that abusing journalists affects the media’s ability to gather and publish information and thus restricts society’s access to information. Furthermore, the discriminatory attitude of law-enforcement bodies toward journalists creates preconditions for distorting reality and contributes to disinformation and to the manipulation of public opinion.

At the beginning of 2008, the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, cited problems with press freedom in Moldova and Paolo Berizzi, the Head of the Politics and Economy Section of the European Commission Delegation to Moldova stressed the problem of implementing efficient reforms in this area. In May 2008, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the Commissioner for External Relations and the European Neighborhood Policy, recommended that Moldova pay increased attention to media freedom in this pre-election year. In July, the events of 2008 led a number of diplomatic missions accredited in Chiúinău to criticize and to express concerns about actions undertaken by law-enforcement agencies against the media, and in November those missions made a joint request to Moldovan authorities to ensure balanced coverage of the 2009 elections.

For its part, the new government stated that the freedom of the media was one of its priorities and pledged to ensure non-discriminatory access to official information and to strengthen court capacity for considering cases related to the freedom of expression. At the same time, the President urged3 government officials to interact with the media to inform the public accurately about government activities and to promote a, “positive image of Moldova in the world.” The systematic actions of state officials restricting the

3 during the meeting on 13 May 2008 with media representatives, according to Media Monitoring Agency

5 media’s freedom of expression and access to information, however, contradict these statements. These actions will be detailed in Section III.

According to the latest opinion barometer,4 newspapers were the main source of information only for 21.8% of respondents whereas television was the source for 88.4%. Television enjoyed the trust of 55.4% of respondents while print media was trusted by only 3.4%. There is thus a general tendency in society to educate itself via TV which significantly reduces its sources of information. As a result, Moldovan print media and its foreign counterparts are facing a real challenge in the third millennium. Despite these survey results, several new publications were launched in 2008. Some of them were clearly loyal to state authorities, for instance the weekly Moldova mare (Great Moldova) which stated that it is an, “independent publication in Moldovan and Russian” and which published Vasile Stati’s editorial in its first issue.5 Others address a more restricted public like Standard financiar (Financial Standard), which is an analytical rating magazine intended for entrepreneurs and investors.

The conclusions reached by the Independent Journalism Center (IJC) in its study “Relations between the Media and the State for Transparency and Accountability” published in October 2008 are suggestive. It established that public authorities place their advertising in former government newspapers and in publications funded from the state budget and thus ignore objective and legal criteria for placing government advertising. Furthermore, discrimination against private publications in favor of public ones is even more obvious in the provinces, and publications received half the advertising from public institutions that Russian language ones did. These practices qualify as discriminatory, non-transparent and unfair support of the media by the government. If public authorities do not observe public procurement standards, they encourage disloyal and illegal competition.

3. The situation in broadcast media Several incidents involving Moldovan audiovisual media in 2008 were politically motivated. The BBC World Service closed its press service in Romanian on 1 August and the Audiovisual Coordinating Council (CCA) suspended the broadcasts of Romanian TV station TVR 1. Both had a negative impact on access to information and on the diversity of information sources, and Moldovan media space has been taken over by Russian language outlets as a result. In this regard, IDIS “Viitorul” experts point out several serious problems that will soon emerge including structuring national public opinion, maintaining a false perception of Russian-Moldovan relations and presenting and promoting ’s interests to the detriment of national interests in settling the Transnistrian conflict.6

4 October 2008, conducted by the CIVIS Center for Analysis and Sociological, Political and Psychological Investigations 5 “O altă Ġară mai frumoasă nu-i” (There is not another more beautiful country), signed by Vasile Stati, well-known promoter of the ‘Moldovianism’ theory, 5 February 2008, according to the Media Monitoring Agency, 5 Feb 2008. 6 “100 Most Important Problems in Moldova in 2008,” http://www.viitorul.org/public/1730/ro/100_probleme.pdf

6 Audiovisual Coordinating Council

In 2008, CCA started off on the wrong foot and was therefore subject to a lot of criticism from civil society, parliament and the international community. On 4 February, CCA member Constantin Rotaru resigned accusing the institution of being politicized. He stated that the last straw for him was the decision to withdraw the broadcasting license of Romanian channel TVR 1 in Moldova. Parliament accepted his resignation on 7 February and appointed Vitalie Tabunúcic to replace him on 11 April.

Starting on 1 May 2008, CCA adopted a decision that obliged Moldovan TV stations to translate news programs into sign language. Although this decision aimed to protect the rights of the hearing impaired, its provisions have been contested by a number of audiovisual experts.

Civil society vehemently criticized CCA for how it conducted the contest for assigning radio and TV frequencies on 7–8 May. The contest was announced on 26 February, and 49 applicants applied: 11 to extend their licenses, 25 to extend their broadcasting range and 13 to create new stations. The contest results were published on 3 June in the Official Gazette of Moldova (Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Moldova). A number of organizations signed a declaration in which they complained about the interference of state authorities in the process including their attempt to suppress opposition media and critical voices. Although the Audiovisual Code stipulates that the, “…issuance of a broadcasting license shall correspond to the principle of ensuring pluralism in broadcasting, excluding the possibility of creating preconditions for the establishment of a monopoly and concentration of property in broadcasting and in mass media in general, taking into account the level to which current licensed broadcasters already comply with this requirement,” none of the stations that offer air time to the opposition or that broadcast critical opinions about the current government obtained frequencies. The radio station Vocea Basarabiei did not obtain any of the eight frequencies in the FM band it had applied for. It is interesting that all 26 of the frequency applications made by this station have been rejected. On the other hand, the radio station Antena C that belongs to the Communist Party of Moldova (CPRM), obtained five frequencies, including one in Chiúinău. PRO TV Chiúinău did not obtain any of the seven frequencies for which it had applied (some frequencies remained unassigned), while Euro TV, run by the People’s Christian Democratic Party (PCDP), obtained nine frequencies and station NIT which belongs to CPRM got 12. A case study conducted by ten NGOs under APEL (the Broadcasters Association) established that the contest deviated from the legislation and that the CCA decisions did not contain any convincing arguments or explanations that would justify the results.

In September 2008, CCA issued Decision No. 83 about adopting reasoned decisions when granting licenses in a contest. According to Article 40 paragraph (4) of the Audiovisual Code, CCA is obliged to explain all its decisions and to publish them in

7 the Official Gazette and on its website. Decision 83 only partially complies with the opinion of audiovisual experts who think that explaining a decision also implies public presentation of (i) the results of the comparative analysis conducted by each CCA member, (ii) the compliance of contest participants with program service requirements, (iii) the concepts participants submitted, (iv) participants’ business plans and (v) participants’ ownership share in other outlets.7

The terms of CCA members Vlad ğurcanu and Valeriu Frumusachi expired on 20 October 2008. On 6 November, parliament selected Marian Pocaznoi and Ignat Vasilachi out of ten candidates for six-year terms with the support of CPRM and PCDP MPs. The opposition accused the majority of fraudulent voting.

The incident with PRO TV’s license that occurred in December 2008 unleashed a real war between PRO TV supported by civil society, certain political parties and the international community, and CCA. PRO TV’s license, which was valid for 7 years, had been granted under the old audiovisual law and expired on 23 December 2008. According to the new Audiovisual Code, licenses of broadcasters that had operated in compliance with the provisions of the code and that had observed previous licensing conditions were to be extended de jure. However, Article 26 of the Regulation on the Procedure for Issuing Broadcasting Licenses and Relay Authorizations that was adopted by a parliamentary decision contradicted this provision as it provides that only broadcasting licenses “obtained under the Audiovisual Code” can be extended de jure. This basically means that a parliamentary decision amended the Audiovisual Code that was adopted by a majority vote of MPs.

In accordance with the Audiovisual Code, PRO TV applied for de jure extension of its license but was initially denied by CCA on the grounds that the station had committed violations. In a later press conference, however, CCA explained its refusal to extend de jure PRO TV’s license by citing the above-mentioned parliamentary decision. The idea that PRO TV might not be able to operate during the elections generated a wave of indignation, and media NGOs made serious allegations against the national authorities as well as the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood, Benita Ferrero Waldner. On 19 December, under pressure from civil society and the international community as well as from numerous actions by political parties and media showing solidarity with PRO TV, CCA declared a moratorium on the contest for licenses expiring before the 2009 elections. As a result, all broadcasters whose licenses are expiring will be able to operate freely during the election. This solution is, however, temporary and does not eliminate the contradictions between the two legal acts. PRO TV Chiúinău appealed CCA’s refusal to extend its license, but its complaint was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

7 “Observance of Audiovisual Code provisions in the issuance of broadcasting licenses on a contest basis,” http://www.apel.md/public/upload/md_20080619_Bilant_concurs_frecvente_studiu_de_caz.pdf

8 National public broadcaster Teleradio-Moldova

In 2008, civil society8 charged that the process of implementing professional standards as stipulated in audiovisual legislation and by ethical considerations was stagnating at Teleradio-Moldova. Moreover, experts thought that the situation in this institution was deteriorating as parliamentary elections approached because the news it broadcast favored only politicians who were currently in the government or those representing state authorities. The study entitled “Teleradio-Absurdistan, or Nonexistent Reforms at the Public Broadcaster” that Igor Munteanu and Veaceslav IoniĠă published in 2008 as IDIS “Viitorul” experts criticizes the management of Teleradio-Moldova for its financial subordination to CPRM. Valentin Todercan filed a complaint in court against the study’s authors.

On 22 February 2008, Veaceslav IoniĠă and Igor Munteanu walked off the Supervisory Council of Teleradio-Moldova in protest over obstructions to their access to information, to expressing their opinions in public and to their participation in decision making. Later, Mr. IoniĠă said that he did not intend to resign from the council stating that the only way he could express himself at Teleradio-Moldova was to absent himself from meetings. In June, the Supervisory Council asked parliament to remove the two from the council because of their absences.

On 28 November 2008, CCA announced a contest to fill vacancies on the Supervisory Council. This decision was based on letter No. 9/57 of 27 Nov 2008 stating that the mandates of V. Cibotaru, A. Burean and V. IoniĠă had expired. Nine individuals applied. CCA selected six of them and submitted their files to parliament for a vote.

In the last months of 2008, Teleradio-Moldova was frequently accused of bias in favor of the ruling party. In October 2008, Our Moldova Alliance picketed Teleradio- Moldova in protest over its editorial policy which it considered was a, “propaganda structure of the Communist Party and its allies.”9 In November, Teleradio-Moldova refused advertising from the newspaper Moldavskie vedomosti; the newspaper characterized the refusal as an order of the ruling party.10 Also in November, an opposition MP stated in a plenary session that opposition parties did not have access to the two media outlets of Teleradio-Moldova.11 In December 2008, Our Moldova Alliance accused Teleradio-Moldova of favoring the ruling party by presenting it exclusively in the program “Presentation of Parties” in which 17 political entities participated.12

8 “Implementation of Audiovisual Code provisions in the light of the analysis of the content of the news programs Median- info and Mesager of the National Public Broadcaster Teleradio-Moldova http://www.apel.md/public/upload/md_Monitor_01_Monitorizare_IPNA.pdf 9 2 Oct 2008 Media Monitoring Agency. 10 Op cit. 3 Nov 2008, 11 Op cit. 6 Nov 2008. 12 Op cit. 4 Dec 2008

9 Regional public broadcasters

Teleradio-GăJăuzia

Elections for the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia took place on 16 March 2008. In January 2008 CCA therefore adopted the “Concept of Coverage of the Electoral Campaign for the Elections to the People’s Assembly of TAU Gagauzia.” The document recommended that local broadcast media grant free airtime to all candidates for debates. On 10 July 2008, the newly elected People’s Assembly of Gagauzia adopted Decision No. 29 on the dissolution of the Supervisory Council of Teleradio- *ăJăuzia. The information note attached to this decision pointed out various violations including appointing a member who did not have a residence permit in Gagauzia; reorganizing Teleradio-GăJăuzia by liquidation although the law stipulates it should be done by restructuring; the high salaries of the management without any legal justification and the failure of the Supervisory Council to exercise its legal duties.13 According to APEL experts, the people’s assembly had no right to dissolve the Supervisory Council which had been established under the law. Gheorghe Gorincioi, CCA Chairman, urged the members of the assembly to restore the Supervisory Council drawing their attention to the fact that their decision to dissolve it was illegal. Although council members did not acknowledge the decision of the assembly, on 30 July the assembly nevertheless announced a contest to fill council positions. The court repealed the decision to dissolve the council, as well as all other decisions adopted by 31 July.

On 2 September 2008, the assembly decided to organize a new contest to fill council positions after it was dissolved a second time by a majority of votes (communist members voted against dissolution). The chairman of the council declared that the decision to dissolve the council was illegal and stated that he would take it to court. The people’s assembly argued for dissolution because of the council’s lack of professionalism and inability to modernize and improve the operations of Teleradio- *ăJăuzia. The council contested the decision of the assembly in court, and the court ruled it was illegal; however, the conflict between the assembly and the Observers’ Council was not over as the assembly voted a budget for 2009 approximately 1.5 million lei less than the council had estimated and requested.

Teleradio-BăOĠi

On 5 March, the BăOĠi Municipal Council decided to include Teleradio-BăOĠi—an outlet comprising a radio station and a TV station—in the list of companies to be

13 “Dismissal of Members of the Observers’ Council of the Regional Broadcaster “Teleradio-GăJăuzia” Case study 12 Aug 2008”, http://www.apel.md/public/upload/md_Monitor-Demiterea_membrilor_CO_IPRA=Studiu_de_caz.pdf

10 privatized. Civil society expressed concerns that Teleradio-BăOĠi would be privatized in the same abusive way that the Chiúinău-based stations Antena C and Euro TV had been. This subject raised heated discussions on the BăOĠi Municipal Council, but the councilors nevertheless approved a contest for privatizing Teleradio-BăOĠi. The opposition denounced this provision as an attempt by the local authorities to interfere with the editorial policy of this media outlet, suspecting that it would be used by the ruling party in the parliamentary election campaign. The composition of the Commission for the Privatization of Teleradio-BăOĠi also raised suspicions and caused controversial discussions because it was made up exclusively of representatives of CPRM.

4. Media at the European Court of Human Rights

On 12 February, Moldova lost a case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) involving Iacob Guja, the spokesperson of the General Prosecutor’s Office who four years earlier had provided copies of letters addressed to the General Prosecutor to the press. One of the letters was signed by the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Vadim Miúin, who was requesting that the criminal investigation of a number of police officers be terminated. That case was subsequently dismissed, and so was Mr. Guja. He then sued the General Prosecutor’s Office, but he lost all national trials. In the case “Guja vs. Moldova,” ECHR found a violation of his freedom of expression and ordered payment of damages by the government of 18, 400 euros.14

On the same date, Moldova lost the case “Flux (4) vs. Moldova” though the decision became final only on 12 May 2008. In this libel case, the national courts had ordered the newspaper Flux to pay damages to Victor Stepaniuc, leader of the parliamentary faction of the Communist Party. The European Court, however, found that Moldova had violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by restricting the plaintiff’s freedom of expression in the context of debates in the public interest involving a high-ranking state official. ECHR ordered payment to Flux of 100 euros as pecuniary damages and 3000 euros as non-pecuniary damages.

On 29 April, EHCR adopted a final decision in the case “Bălan vs. Moldova.” The Moldovan photographer Pavel Bălan contested the refusal of the Moldovan Ministry of the Interior to compensate him for the unauthorized use of one of his photos on the background of national identity documents. EHCR found that the national authorities had violated the right to property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered payment of 5,000 euros as pecuniary damages and 2,000 euros as non-pecuniary damages.

On 2 June, ECHR rejected the appeal filed by the Chiúinău municipal government with the Grand Chamber of the European Court and adopted a final decision in the case

14 Media Monitoring Agency, 12 Feb 2008

11 “Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel vs. Moldova” in which Moldova was obliged to pay damages in the amount of 13,800 euros in favor of the newspaper Timpul and its employee. In 2004, the Chiúinău-based company DAAC-Hermes had sued this publication and the journalist for publishing the article “Luxury in a poverty-stricken country.” The investigation recounted abuses by the government in purchasing 42 Skoda Superb cars from this company for the chiefs of districts. Timpul and journalist Alina Anghel filed a complaint at ECHR on 28 November 2005 alleging that their right to freedom of expression had been violated and that they should not have to pay the fine of 130,000 lei awarded to Daac-Hermes. Among other items, the newspaper pointed out that no public tenders had been organized for the procurement of those 42 cars. During the lawsuit, the newspaper had to undergo legal restructuring and to change its name to Timpul de dimineaĠă.15 ECHR obliged the Chiúinău government to pay 13,800 euros to the publication as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and for legal costs. Based on the final ECHR decision, the publication filed a request for reconsideration of the decision adopted by the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice three years earlier.

On 1 July, ECHR issued a decision in the case “Flux (5) vs. Moldova,” which became final on 1 October 2008 and found Moldova guilty of violating Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees the right to free expression. The plaintiff contested the decision of the national court issued in a libel case in which it had been obliged to compensate the Deputy General Prosecutor for damages. ECHR ordered payment of 185 euros as pecuniary damages, 3000 euros as non-pecuniary damages, and 1,800 euros for costs and expenses.

On 29 July 2008 in the case “Flux (6) vs. Moldova,” ECHR decided by a vote of four to three that Moldova had not violated Article 10 of the Convention in the decision of the national court to oblige the newspaper to pay damages to a high school director. In 2003, Flux published an article about the high school Spiru Haret based on an anonymous letter that accused the school’s director of misappropriating school funds and of taking bribes from parents who wished to enroll their children. ECHR established that the newspaper had neglected its obligations with regard to responsible journalism and that the right to free expression also implied certain responsibilities that must be assumed by those who exercise that right.

By 29 September 2009, the Moldovan Government must submit explanations to ECHR about a case involving the newspaper Timpul de dimineaĠă. On 15 January 2007, after the newspaper published the article “Vladâca Tarlev” (Church Leader Tarlev), which criticized the ex-Prime Minister for preaching from a church altar, a number of parishioners and priests attacked the newspaper’s premises, behaved aggressively with its journalists, threw eggs at them and verbally insulted them.

15 Op cit. 2 June 2008.

12 By 26 February 2009, Moldova must submit explanations for suspending the broadcasting license of the Romanian public TV station TVR 1. ECHR judges could issue a decision on this case by the end of 2009 or at the beginning of 2010. The dispute is because the CCA put up for tender the state frequency on which TVR 1 was broadcasting and granted it to TLF M International. TVR 1 contested the CCA decision but lost all national trials. TVR 1 appealed to ECHR in August 2008 claiming a violation of its right to free expression and of its right to property as it held a license that was valid until 2011. TVR 1 could claim damages amounting to half a million euros from Moldova.16 Initially, the Chiúinău Court of Appeals rejected the complaint of the Romanian TV Company against CCA, and on 10 July 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The TVR 1 lawyer said the court decision was “politically biased.”

II. The right to information: legislative developments

A recent study on access to information conducted by the Acces-info Center showed that the situation is unsatisfactory; statistics confirm the discrepancy between official statements on the importance of access to information and the actual situation. The study emphasizes that both unjustified and formally justified refusals to provide access to official information are frequent.

A report17 submitted by IJC in October 2008 shows that access to information is generally restricted. “An imposing number of state institutions provides incomplete, summary or ambiguous information even after repeated requests for information are submitted. This situation shows that the institutions either do not have the information, or they have it but do not want to provide it as requested.”

The Law on Transparency in Decision Making adopted on 13 November 2008 has become effective. The draft law was issued in 2006 by the Acces-Info Center and other NGOs, and was supported by the government and submitted to parliament as a legislative initiative. The law establishes procedural principles, methods and rules for ensuring transparency in decision making in public administrations at all levels and regulates their relations with both individuals and legal entities. The difference between the Law on Access to Information which ensures public access to the decisions made and to the information held by public authorities and the Law on Transparency in Decision Making is that the latter ensures citizen access to the decision-making process.18

16 Op cit.10 Nov 2008. 17 “Relations between the media and the state – for transparency and accountability” http://ijc.md/Publicatii/presa_stat_raport_final.pdf 18 “Quarterly report (4) on assessment of access to official information in Moldova”, http://www.acces- info.org.md/index.php?cid=146&lid=839

13 The draft Law on State Secrets was issued by the Information and Security Service and was approved by the government and adopted on 27 November 2008. Unfortunately, the advisory opinions issued on the draft were kept confidential and the objections of international institutions were not taken into consideration. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and ARTICLE 19 drew attention to the fact that certain legal provisions posed a significant danger to exercising the right to free expression and to gaining access to information. The provision that protecting state secrets would be supervised by the security services and the absence of a provision that would protect individuals disclosing information also raised concerns. In an official memorandum19 on the draft, ARTICLE 19 raised a number of questions regarding the definition of “state secret” stating that it was too general and included information created and held by individuals. In addition, the procedure for classifying information was excessively broad and allowed information that was not directly related to national security to be labeled secret, such as information related to the economy, science or public administration. Moreover, the “harm test” for establishing the level of secrecy was very weak while the confidentiality timeframe was rather long. Also, ARTICLE 19 noted with great concern that the draft law did not take into account the importance of public interest and did not provide protection for whistleblowers who disclosed violations.

ARTICLE 19 further stated that the of Moldova, by virtue of the obligations it assumed by signing the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, should bring the draft law into compliance with international standards; unfortunately that did not happen. Instead, the law was adopted with the votes of CPRM and PCDP MPs in its final reading. Among the recommendations in its memorandum, ARTICLE 19 suggested that Moldova include a provision in either the draft law on state secrets or in the law on access to information that if there were contradictions in the provisions of the two laws, the law on access to information would prevail. Also, this international organization recommended that the draft law stipulate that information should be disclosed when public interest prevailed and that public interest should also include information about the cooperation of certain public officials with the security services during the communist era. Miklos Haraszti, the OSCE Representative for Press Freedom said in Vienna that the new law did not encourage access to information held by government agencies.

In 2008, IJC filed 17 complaints in court against public institutions that had either refused to provide access to information or had provided evasive answers to requests for information. IJC believes this practice has had a beneficial effect on public officials and on judges by contributing to the formation of judicial practice on access to information.

19 http://ijc.md//Publicatii/mlu/article_19.pdf

14 III. Abuse of journalists in 2008

On 18 January 2008, a group of journalists from PRO TV Chiúinău, TV Dixi, and Jurnal de Chiúinău were prevented from reporting on an evening performance featuring the writer and humorist Gheorghe Urschi because they did not have “invitations.” In addition, the PRO TV cameraman was forced to delete the shots of President Voronin he took when the President was entering the National Palace.

On 31 January, President Voronin requested the Information and Security Service (ISS) to track and halt any illicit funding of political parties and the media, including resources coming from outside the country. He made this request during an extended ISS plenary session. The President had previously expressed his discontent that certain media outlets were funded from abroad, especially from Romania, but this was the first time he asked an official institution to act. Subsequently, on 20 February 2008, ISS director Artur Reúetinicov made it clear in an interview with Moldpres that he would undertake all necessary actions to halt any funding of Moldovan media and political parties from abroad as requested by President Voronin.20

On 11 February 2008, the General Prosecutor’s Office instituted a criminal case against Constantin Tănase, the director of the newspaper Timpul de dimineaĠă, “due to his actions aimed at stirring dissention or national, racial or religious strife.” An NGO, however, established that the allegations were not based on evidence that would prove the ill will of the accused thus casting doubt on the lawfulness of the legal action. In a speech delivered at a meeting on 3 February, Constantin Tănase had stated among other things that, “Moldova must get rid not only of Voronin and the communists but also of the Russians.” According to the Media Monitoring Agency, this sentence provoked responses from Russian media and officials. Later, Mr. Tănase published a clarification in Timpul saying he was referring to the Russian Federation and not to ethnic Russians living in Moldova. He noted in his clarification that, “There is one simple problem with the ethnic Russians: we want them to learn the language of the local population and to integrate as soon as possible into the life of this country which has unconditionally granted them citizenship.”

On February 2008, a correspondent from the newspaper Moldavskie vedomosti was not allowed to attend the meeting the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, held with the students of Moldova State University. The university administration, backed up by security guards, blocked the journalist’s entry into the building citing various excuses while they allowed other journalists to attend the event.

20 Media Monitoring Agency, 31 Jan 2008

15 On 16 February 2008, a reporter from the daily Timpul de dimineaĠă was treated rudely by one of the bodyguards of Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev while the Prime Minister was inspecting the premises of the government motor pool. Although the journalist identified herself and argued that the Prime Minister was a public person and was visiting a public site, she was removed by force on the orders of the head of the press office. Before this incident, the journalist had published several articles about certain irregularities in the procurement of 17 Skoda cars.

On 9 March 2008, the bodyguards of the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament refused to allow a team from PRO TV Chiúinău to film Marian Lupu who was attending the MaslenniĠa Festival of Slavic Minorities. Other TV stations were allowed to film at that event.

At the beginning of April 2008, CCA was notified by the Permanent Bureau of the Moldovan Parliament that it had permitted the use of inappropriate language during the program “Poveúti cu măúti” (“Fairytales with masks”), broadcast by the TV station NIT, but only three of the nine CCA members voted to include this issue for discussion on their agenda. In this connection, media NGOs called on CCA members to function objectively and in strict conformity with the Audiovisual Code leaving their personal ideological or political preferences aside. CCA’s attitude was, however, defiant as according to a parliamentary press release, the CCA President acknowledged that CCA had received a number of complaints from citizens about the use of obscene language in “Poveúti cu măúti” and had promised that those complaints would be considered at the public meeting on 8 April 2008. After several postponements, however, five of eight CCA members opposed discussing this issue even at the 17 April meeting.

On 11 April 2008, after the meeting between President and the Transnistrian leader Igor Smirnov, the President’s Office organized a press conference to which it invited only the TV stations favored by the communists.

On 22 April, Jurnal de Chiúinău received the ruling of Chiúinău Central District Court that the paper’s account of 300,000 lei was sequestered on a request from the Donduúeni District Prosecutor. The prosecutor complained in Court that articles published in 2003 and 2004 had injured his honor and dignity. The decision was issued on 14 April but the newspaper was notified about it only on 22 April. The newsroom said this action was an attempt to paralyze its operations. On 7 May, their account was restored.

On 30 April 2008, the journalist Oleg Brega was arrested and kept in administrative detention for three days because of his intention to protest peacefully in front of the National Palace where a festival on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Moldova 1 TV station (TVM) was taking place. The police did not allow Mr. Brega to come near the National Palace, and the Buiucani District Court of Chiúinău found the placard with the inscription “50 years of lies” he was carrying to be “insulting.”

16 In May 2008, the Anti-Economic Crime and Corruption Center subjected the newspaper Moldavskie vedomosti to financial inspections as part of the General Prosecutor’s Office criminal investigation of an allegedly “large misappropriation of another’s property.” These allegations were made after the paper published advertising for the Soroca Quarry Company.

At its meeting on 7 May, CCA voted to hold a contest for the radio frequency used by Radio 21 whose license was expiring on 8 June 2008. This decision contradicted the Regulation on the Procedure and Conditions of Issuance of Broadcasting Licenses and Relay Authorizations approved by Parliamentary Decision No. 433-XVI of 28 December 2006 that expressly provides in articles 15 and 17 that available radio and TV frequencies must be contested only after the expiration of a valid broadcasting license. From the expiry date till the new decision to assign the license issued by the council, the old license holder continues to operate.

On 10 May, Ghenadie Brega was protesting his brother’s arrest in front of a government building and was accosted by police officers dressed in civilian clothes and was then arrested and taken to the Buiucani police station in Chiúinău where he was held for 48 hours in inhumane and degrading conditions. He was accused of, “failure to accede to the legitimate requirements of police officers, putting up resistance and insulting the police.”

On 5 June, a Moscow-based district court upheld the Russian government’s refusal to allow journalist Natalia Morari, a Moldovan citizen, to enter Russia. She was a correspondent for the Moscow publication The New Times. Ms. Morari was detained on 16 December 2007 at the Domodedovo Airport in Moscow after a trip to Israel and was expelled from the country. The journalist’s lawyer stated that he would appeal the district court’s decision as permitted in Russian legislation. In February 2008, she again tried to enter Russia as the wife of a Russian citizen, but she was not allowed to do so. The Russian Federal Security Service cited the danger the journalist posed to security, but the journalist thinks that she has become persona non grata because she wrote a number of articles that were critical of the Kremlin.21

On 17 July, the Romanian news agency NewsIn reported that its journalist Lina Grîu, who has Moldovan and Romanian citizenship, was denied access to the press conference to be held by President Voronin on 23 July on the grounds that she was not accredited. NewsIn had applied for her accreditation at the Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration on 14 April. Although according to regulations the accreditation procedure cannot last more than 30 days, she was not accredited and was thus deprived of the right to participate in the press events organized by the country’s top leadership.

21 Op. cit. 5 June 2008.

17 On 26 September, the newspaper Edinaya Gagauzia published by the political movement with the same name stated that it had become a victim of attacks by the Chiúinău communists who intended to use the prosecutor’s office to liquidate it. The pressure on the newspaper started after it had published a number of articles that were critical of certain law-enforcement officers.

On 8 October, a PRO TV Chiúinău team was rudely treated at the Orhei District Court by a police officer and by the deputy police captain. These incidents of aggression against PRO TV Chiúinău teams have been condemned by media organizations and by opposition political parties.

On 10 October, Veronica Russu, a journalist at Ziarul de gardă, was harassed by one of the guards accompanying a defendant at the Chiúinău Military Court. Although the chief judge had allowed the reporter to take pictures in the courtroom after the sentence was pronounced and during the break, the guard forbade her from doing so for no apparent reason.22

Cameraman Vasile Costiuc of the Internet TV station Jurnal TV was harassed by police officers on 11 October in the Great National Assembly Square in Chiúinău where celebrations on the occasion of the National Wine Day were taking place. He was filming the head of the state tasting wines when he was accosted by four individuals who asked him to follow them, “without making a show.” He was pushed into a car that drove for forty minutes through Chiúinău while a presidential bodyguard reviewed the film he had shot. Mr. Costiuc was then driven back to the Great National Assembly Square and advised to go home for his own safety.

On 27 October, based on a request filed by Prosecutor Gheorghii Leiciu of Comrat, the district court applied sequester on the newspaper Edinaya GăJăuzia half a million lei. The plaintiff claimed that two articles published in the newspaper had injured his honor and dignity.23

On 29 October, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration rejected the request for accreditation for Radio România ActualităĠi correspondent Cristina Dumitrescu without citing any reasons. IDIS “Viitorul” experts have forecast that in an effort to sustain the currently tense relations with Bucharest, Moldovan authorities are not expected to establish clear criteria for the accreditation of journalists any time soon.24

On 25 November, inspectors from the Preventive Medicine Center measured the level of sound pollution produced by PRO TV Chiúinău. The center was contacted by

22 Op cit. 11 Oct 2008. 23 Op cit. 27 Oct 2008. 24 “100 Most Important Problems in 2008”, http://www.viitorul.org/public/1730/ro/100_probleme.pdf

18 ùtefan Secăreanu, a PCDP MP who stated that he had received anonymous letters from residents near the station who were bothered by the loud noise it generated. The experts found that the air conditioners produced noise a little above the norm but that the level of the sound could be compared to a discussion held in a normal tone of voice or to a bird chirping. Two other experts had previously measured the level of radiation near the premises of PRO TV Chiúinău as an anonymous complaint had alleged that the leaves on nearby trees had fallen due to radiation.25

On 27 November, a camera operator from PRO TV Chiúinău was obliged by President Vladimir Voronin’s bodyguards to delete images of two bodyguards entering a car. This incident occurred after the President’s visit to the Anticorruption Center. The Press Service of the President’s Office stated that the bodyguards did not like to be filmed but admitted that they had acted inappropriately because there are no legal provisions that would allow them to delete the images.26

On 29 November, PRO TV Chiúinău reporter Tatiana ğurcanu was insulted and mistreated in public while she was doing her job. In response to her request to explain a statement made during a meeting at the Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Iurie Roúca, used insulting and obscene language. Also on 29 November, another PRO TV Chiúinău journalist, Sorina Obreja, was treated rudely by President Vladimir Voronin after the official ceremony for young men enlisting in the national army to take their oaths of allegiance.

On 26 December, journalist Domnica Negru of PRO TV Chiúinău was physically assaulted by a police officer. He twisted her arm and destroyed her microphone while she was making a report about a hold-up at a branch of a Chiúinău bank.

Conclusions

Incidents of abusing journalists and of applying pressure on media outlets increased in Moldova in 2008 and were not addressed by state institutions, especially by law enforcement agencies. In most cases these incidents were not investigated, and the culprits were not punished. IJC expects the freedom of the press to deteriorate in the election year 2009, state authorities to disregard legal provisions on the right to information and on the freedom of expression and certain media outlets to fail to observe the code of professional ethics.

25 Media Monitoring Agency, 25 Nov 2008. 26 Op cit. 27 Nov 2008.

19