Supported by
Nichtoffizielle Übersetzung! Keine Gewähr für Richtigkeit.
Volltext
File Nr. 4r-3257/22
PIGD registration number: 4-21151529-02-4r-08072022
Chisinau Court, Ciocana District
Judge Ciobanu Sergiu
Decision
In the name of law
(Dispozitive)
September the 8-th, 2022
Chișinău
Criminal College of the Chisinau Court of Appeal
Having in its componence:
President of the trial, Judge: Bulhac Ion
Judges: Lîsîi Ghenadie and Morozan Ghenadie
With the participation of:
Lawyer ***** Grigore
Lawyer Bancu Cristina
Plaintiff *****Vladimir
judging the appeal brought by ***** Grigore on behalf of the contravener ***** Igor,
against
the judgement of the Court of First Instance of Chisinau, Ciocana, of 17 January 2022, partially upholding the appeal filed by the lawyer ***** Grigore in the interests of the contravener ***** Igor,
the contravention proceedings, initiated on the basis of Article 70 para. (2) of the Code contravention,
against ***** Igor,
on the ground that the time limit of the limitation period for bringing proceedings against him has expired and the remainder was dismissed as unfounded
the appeal lodged by the lawyer ***** Grigore
in the interests of the contravener ***** Igor,
against the minute regarding the contravention and the decision of the investigating officer of the Buiucani Police Inspectorate, Chisinau Police Department, IGP of the MAI, series/nr. MAI, no. 05291628, from 22.09.2021,
in the part of the ***** Igor's guilt of committing the contravention provided for in Art. 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code.
The legal summons procedure was executed.
FINDS:
1. On 23.09.2020, at 20.00, ***** Igor, being on the street Columna no. ***** (red.: = Street number), mun. Chisinau,
knowingly spread some false information accompanied by the accusation of committing crimes about ***** Vladimir,
thus the latter being defamed.
2. By his intentional actions, ***** Igor committed the contravention provided for in Article 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code, identified by
"defamation, i.e. knowingly spreading false information which defames another person, actions accompanied by the accusation of committing an offence".
3. According to the minute regarding the contravention and the decision of the investigating officer of the Buiucani Police Inspectorate, Chisinau Police Department, IGP of the MAI, series/nr. MAI, no. 05291628, from 22.09.2021,
***** Igor was found guilty of committing the contravention provided for in art. 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code and fined in the amount of 75 conventional units.
4. Disagreeing with the minutes of the contravention, and the decision imposing the fine, the lawyer ***** Grigore, in the interests of the contravener ***** Igor, on 28.04.2021, filed an appeal to the court, in accordance with the provisions of art. 448 of the Contravention Code,
requesting the annulment of the official report and the decision of sanction and termination of the contravention proceedings,
on the grounds that there is no fact of contravention.
5. By the decision of the Court of Chisinau, Ciocana seat of 17 January 2022, it was
- partially admitted the appeal filed by the lawyer ***** Grigore in the interests of of the contravener ***** Igor, the contravention proceedings were terminated, initiated on the basis of Article 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code against ***** Igor,
on the ground that the limitation period for liability has expired and
- dismissed as unfounded the remainder of the appeal brought by by the lawyer ***** Grigore on behalf of the contravener ***** Igor, against the minute regarding the contravention and the decision of the investigating officer of the Buiucani Police Inspectorate, Chisinau Police Department, IGP of the MAI, series/nr. MAI, no. 05291628, from 22.09.2021,
in the part of the ***** Igor's guilt which views the commission of the contravention provided for by art. 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code.
6. Considering the decision in question to be unfounded, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Contravention Code of the Republic of Moldova, he (red. ***** Igor) challenged it by appeal,
requesting the annulment of the contested decision and the termination of the contravention proceedings on the grounds of lack of fact of the contravention.
7. In the grounds of the appeal, it was submitted that all the contravener's statements of 23.09.2020 did not constitute defamation.
8. According to Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Moldova - 64/23.04.2010 on freedom of expression:
"value judgement - opinion, comment, theory or idea reflecting an attitude towards a fact, the truthfulness of which is impossible to prove",
further, determining the clear distinction between information, called facts, and opinions, called value judgments,
the European Court Human Rights Court has noted that the existence of facts can be demonstrated,
whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof.
9. In the case of value judgments, proof of veracity is impossible, and the requirement of proof affects the essence of freedom of opinion, which is one of the fundamental elements of the right guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.
10. Most of the statements made by ***** Igor on 23.09.20220 are nothing more than value judgements (and not facts),
and in their case, proof of the truth is not admissible, as long as the truth of the value judgments is not susceptible of being the subject of evidence.
11. According to Article 25 para. (3) of the Law of the Republic of Moldova - 64/23.04.2010 regarding the freedom of expression:
"Any reasonable doubt as to the granting the status of value judgement or reporting on facts shall be interpreted in favour of granting the status of value judgement."
12. On Jurnal TV, the programme "Secrets of Power" from 23 September 2020, with reference to the accusation brought against him, by Igor ***** were provided some allegations, which contained a mixture of facts and value judgments.
13. Allegations made against ***** Vladimir regarding the involvement in various acts of corruption represent a value judgement with a sufficient factual basis based on on the final conviction of ***** Vladimir in 2016 by the courts the Republic of Moldova for corruption and influence peddling in a particularly high proportion committed by a person holding public office;
14. With reference to the argument of the court that the evidence presented by the contravener (the letter from the Frankfurt am Main Prosecutor's Office dated 24.02.2020 regarding the criminal file with no. 7742 JS 209753/20GW and the Ordinance authorising the criminal seizure of real estate issued by the Judge for detention from the Paris High Court of 19.07.2016)
which confirms that a criminal case would be investigated in France regarding ***** Vladimir,
does not give the contravener ***** Igor any right to give such information to the general public,
we do not agree and point out that according to Art. 10 para. (3) of the Law of the Republic of Moldova - 64/23.04.2010 regarding the freedom of expression
"Nobody can be held responsible for having made public information about the private and family life of the person if the public interest in knowing it exceeds the interest of the person concerned not to spread the information."
15. According to Art. 2 of the Law of the Republic of Moldova - 64/23.04.2010 regarding the freedom of expression
"Public interest is the interest of society (and not mere curiosity of individuals) towards the exercise of power in a democratic state or other matters which, normally, arise in the interest of society or a section of it”.
16. According to art. 25 para. (2) Law of the Republic of Moldova - 64/23.04.2010 regarding the freedom of expression
"Any reasonable doubt regarding the granting of the status of public interest or curiosity is interpreted in favour of the granting of the status of public interest".
17. So, in the broadcast of 23.09.2020, the secrets of power the contravener made public information that ***** Vladimir is being investigated for money laundering in France and Germany through written answers received from law enforcement agencies in France and Germany and how it did not bring him accusations that he had committed them.
Moreover, taking into account the public interest with reference to the person ***** Vladimir, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, political leader of a party which was in government and which was convicted in 2016 under art. 324 para. (3) lit. a) and lit. b) Criminal Code (passive corruption) and under Art. 326 para. (3) lit. a) Criminal Code (influence peddling) offences connected with the 2014 "billion theft",
the public interest in such information concerning criminal investigations regarding Vladimir ***** abroad (France, Germany) is major.
18. During the TV program ***** Igor mentioned that
"Now there is a criminal case for defamation in Germany on behalf of Vlad *****"
This fact is confirmed by the registered letter from the German lawyer Stephan Kuhn of September 8, 2021 confirming that there is a criminal complaint against ***** (red.: = Vladimir) for the statements made by him in September 2019.
19. With regard to the expression
"***** (red.: = Vladimir) permanent was doing an act of corruption”
''Trolling as he did when he paid out of the savings bank money stolen from the pockets of and paid to the Americans to the tune of over two million euros."
Represents a value judgement with sufficient factual substrate based on:
***** Vladimir's final conviction in 2016 by the courts of the Republic of Moldova for corruption in a particularly large proportion committed by a person of public dignity and
on the letter from Greenberg Quilan Rosner Research (GQRR) from 03.11.2014 addressed to Vladimir Filat,
the email from lawyers Venable LLp acting on behalf of GQRR to Vlad ***** and Victor Rosea General Secretary of PLD) from 14.11.2014,
copy of the contract for analysis of Moldovan public opinion period 01.07.2013 signed between PLDM and GQRR (in the amount of 115 400$),
the copy of the contract for the analysis of Moldovan public opinion for the period 01.07.2013 signed between PLDM and GQRR (amount 2192 591 US Dollars),
invoices according to which the services of GQRR were paid by Rhodes Overseas LTD (offshore company whose beneficial owner was Vladimir Filat), the invoices for the payment of GQRR services to Vlad ***** (PLDM)
"How many real money did Vlad ***** profit from the theft from the banking system? (ask. Alex Cozer):
So following the meetings I had in 2014 with his representatives, they were talking about the exact amount of 100 million euros."
The phrase "there was talk" out of context is a value judgement, according to Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Moldova - 64/23.04.2010 regarding the freedom of expression:
"value judgement - an opinion, a comment, a theory or an idea reflecting the attitude towards a fact, the truth of which is impossible to prove"
"Vlad ***** is a corrupt and a thief. "
- is a judgement of value judgement with sufficient factual basis
based on the final conviction of ***** Vladimir in 2016 by the courts of the Republic of Moldova for corruption in a particularly large proportion
committed by a person with a position of public dignity who had tangents with the theft of the billion (from the Savings Bank).
20.
"***** (red.: = Vladimir) is under investigation, a money laundering case has been opened against him by prosecutors in Frankfurt."
It is value judgement with sufficient factual substrate based on the copy of the letter from the Frankfurt am Main Public Prosecutor's Office dated 24.02.2020 concerning the criminal file with no. 7742 JS 209753/20GW opened against Vlad ***** on the offence of money laundering.
"He sold the seized assets from Iasi, IPTEH assets and two plots of land in Iasi together with Sanda ***** (red.: = wife of Vladimir) and Diviricean."
The statement is based on the factual information set out in the reference submitted to the Contravention file by Igor *****, including information taken from the investigative articles of Ziarul de Gardă, media: https:
www.zdg.md/im/estigatii/ancheta/lupte-pentrumiliardele-de-sub-seizure-what-don't-they-know-procurators/;
https://www.zdg.md/importante/lupta-pentru-averea-lui-filat-dezvaluirile-siacuzatiile-nepotului-fostului-premier/;
https://protv.md/actualitate/nepotul-luivlad-filat-o-acuza-pe-fosta-wife-to-this-guy-would-2274931.html.
"I can't compare myself to ***** (red.: = Vladimir) he doesn't pay taxes, he has no obligations to the state. He just steals and that's all."
It is a value judgement with sufficient factual substrate (an opinion of the contravener) based on the final conviction of ***** Vladimir in 2016 by the courts of the Republic of Moldova for actions of corruption in a particularly large proportion committed by a person of public dignity.
"The money was received from the company that has transferred the money to an offshore company Earlsford Finance and this offshore company paid to the owners of the house where ***** he bought them. I have personally spoken to the prosecutor and I understand that it is not long before ***** (red.: = Vladimir) will be convicted in France for this money laundering offence."
This is a fact that is demonstrated by the Order authorising the criminal seizure of property issued by the Judge for Liberties and Detention of the High Court of Paris of 19.07.2016.
"So, ***** (red.: = Vladimir) has made his house out of the bribe obtained from Amaya for the transfer of the Moldova Lottery."
It is a value judgement (opinion) with sufficient factual substrate based on the Order authorising the criminal seizure of real estate issued by the Judge for Liberties and Detention of the High Court of Paris of 19.07.2016.
"The biggest criminal in this country is Plahotniuc and ***** (red.: = Vladimir) these two are the heads of two organised criminal organisations."
It is a value judgement (opinion) with sufficient factual substrate based on
- the final conviction of ***** Vladimir in 2016 by the courts of the Republic of Moldova for corruption actions in particularly high proportion committed by a person of public dignity and
- making referral to the Parliament Decision No.39 from 08-06-2019 regarding the adoption of the Declaration on the recognition of the captive nature of the state (Republic of Moldova).
"We need to investigate the theft of the billion outside Moldova. in the case of ***** (red.: = Vladimir) for example, he used a German Deutsche Trust Bank, which we have also seen in Ziarul de Gardă.
He used a German bank to transfer the money from Rhodes to the German bank later through the correspondent bank to America.
So the money laundering operation happened in Frankfurt where he transferred it through the correspondent bank."
A value judgement with sufficient factual substrate based on
- the copy of the payment confirmation from the Bank of Latvia ABLV Bank regarding the money received by Rodos Overseas LTd through the correspondent bank Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas and
- a copy of the letter from the Public Prosecutor's Office Frankfurt am Main dated 24.02.2020 concerning the file criminal case No 7742 JS 209753/20GW against Vlad ***** concerning the offence of money laundering.
21. However, the allegations made above are based on circumstances such as to have convinced the contravener Igor ***** of the truth of his allegations (acting in good faith) and there is no belief that Igor ***** intended to harm ***** Vladimir's reputation.
And his characterisation of Vladimir ***** as a thief is in the context of the offences he has committed and was convicted by the courts of the Republic of Moldova and have direct tangency with the "billion theft" that took place in 2014.
22. At the same time, the essential element of the offence provided for in Article 70(2) of the Contravention Code is the subjective aspect which is characterised by direct intent (knowingly spreading false information), which has not been proved by the investigating officer.
23. Knowingly spreading false information means that the slanderer, when spreading information that defames another person, must be aware of the fact that it is not true.
In this case,***** Igor made allegations about some facts based on evidence and others statements representing his theories, opinions and attitude towards certain facts.
24. Thus, when ***** Igor gave an interview to the TV channel "Jurnat TV", the show "Secrets of Power" of 23.09.2020, he had, as he believed, reliable evidence confirming the involvement of Vlad ***** in the commission of crimes investigated by the German and French authorities with reference to money laundering acts involving offshore companies affiliated with ***** Vladimir.
There can therefore be no direct intent to defame.
25. In other words, ***** Igor had sufficient reason to believe that the information he reported was true when the facts and circumstances which were known to him were in his opinion sufficient in themselves for a reasonable and observant person to be convinced of their authenticity and the genuineness conclusions drawn from them.
26. At the same time, contrary to the opinion of the court, we consider that the contravener's rights of defence was violated at the stage of the examination of the contraventional case by the investigating officer.
27. According to Article 378 para. (1) of the Contravention Code
"In the contravention proceedings, the authority competent to decide the contravention case is obliged to ensure that the parties and other participants in the proceedings fully exercise their procedural rights under the conditions of this Code."
In particular ***** Igor was deprived of the right to present additional evidence, to hear witnesses, to object to the actions of the investigating officer.
Thus, ***** Igor being abroad at the time of his summons (15.09.2021), informed the investigating officer by email sent on 21.09.2021, that he could not be present on 22.09.2021 (the explanation stays below):
his lawyer who received the summons on 15.09.2021 (contrary to the court claims that ***** Igor would have known long before about the commencement of the contravention proceedings) at that time was abroad, the copy of the plane ticket is attached (at the summons submission date, there was no availability date agreed regarding the lawyer or ***** Igor).
28. The contravener Igor ***** had been away in Germany since 09.05.2021 and due to the short period of time (7 days) he did not have the possibility to arrive in the R. Moldova until 22.09.2021 (in this regard a copy of the passport is attached as evidence).
At the same time, he informed the investigating officer that he is also undergoing medical treatment which he cannot interrupt, being available to report no earlier than 24.09.2021.
29. Accordingly, the examination of the case in the absence of ***** Igor and his lawyer does represent nothing more than a violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings, equality
and the availability of procedural rights to the parties, because it places the absent party in an unfavourable position from the start.
30. At the trial of the Chisinau Court of Appeal, the contravener's lawyer argued the appeal, requesting its admission on the grounds invoked.
31. The plaintiff’s lawyer and the plaintiff argued for the dismissal of the appeal and uphold the contested decision.
32. Judging the declared appeal, examining the materials of the case, relating the factual situation to the legal one, the Criminal Chamber reaches the conclusion that
the appeal of the lawyer ***** Grigore in the interests of the contravener ***** Igor,
is unfounded and liable to be rejected,
the decision of the Chisinau Court, Ciocana headquarters of January 17, 2022,
is to be upheld without changes.
33. Next, the College,
having verified the legality, objectivity and correctness of the contested decision, in relation to the reasons put forward by the appellant,
finds that there are no factual and legal grounds for its annulment,
thus in adopting a decision, the court of first instance took into account the requirements of Article 458 para. (1) of the Contravention Code, which states:
„within the contravention case assessment, the court is obliged to determine:
lit. a) the truthfulness of the alleged contravention;
lit. b) the existence of causes that remove the contraventional nature of the act;
lit. c) the guilt of the person in respect of whom the infringement proceedings have been brought;
lit. d) the existence of mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances;
lit. e) the necessity of the penalty and, where appropriate, the nature of the penalty;
lit. d) other aspects relevant to the fair resolution of the case".
34. According to Art. 448 para. (1) of the Contravention Code,
"the contravener, the victim or their representative, the public prosecutor, if he is party to the contravention case, if they do not agree with the decision the decision of the investigating officer or if it was issued in violation of procedural rules laid down in this Code, shall be entitled to contest the decision issued on the contravention case".
35. The College notes that
on 23.09.2020, 20.00, *****
Igor *****,
being at ***** (red.: = Street number) Columna Street, mun. Chisinau,
knowingly spread some false information accompanied by the accusation of committing crimes about ***** Vladimir,
thus the latter being defamed.
36. By his intentional actions, ***** Igor committed the contravention provided for in Article 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code, identified by
"defamation, i.e. knowingly spreading false information which defames another person, actions accompanied by the accusation of committing an offence".
37. According to the minute regarding the contravention and the decision of the investigating officer of the Buiucani Police Inspectorate, Police Department of the Municipality, Chisinau, IGP of the MAI, MAI series/nr., no. 05291628, dated 22.09.2021,
***** Igor was found guilty of committing the contravention provided for by art. 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code and fined in the amount of 75 conventional units.
38. According to Article 381 para. (4) of the Contravention Code, the authority competent to deal with the contravention case has the obligation to take all measures provided for by law to investigate all aspects of the circumstances of the case in a complete and objective manner, to highlight both
the circumstances proving the guilt of the person and
those exonerating the person in respect of whom the contravention proceedings have been brought,
as well as the mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
39. According to Art. 440 para. (1) of the Contravention Code, the establishment of the contravention means
the activity, carried out by the investigating officer,
of collecting and administering evidence of the existence of the contravention,
of concluding the decision on the examination of the contravention on the basis of the investigating officer's finding or the minute regarding the contravention,
of applying the penalty for the contravention or sending the file, as appropriate,
to the official responsible for examining the contravention case,
within the authority to which the official responsible for the administrative offence belongs
in the court or in another body for settlement.
40. According to Article 375 para. (3) of the Contravention Code, conclusions about the person's guilt in committing the contravention cannot be based on assumptions.
Any doubts in the proof of the accusation which cannot be removed under the conditions of this Code shall be interpreted in favour of the person in respect of whom the contravention process was started.
41. According to Art. 425 para. (1), (2), (3) of the Contravention Code,
the evidence shall be factual elements, acquired in the manner laid down in this Code, which serve to the existence or non-existence of a contravention, to identify the perpetrator, to establish guilt and to know other important circumstances for the just resolution of the case.
The following shall be admissible as evidence:
the minute regarding the contravention,
the minute regarding the removal of objects and documents,
the minute regarding the search,
the minute which views the spot investigation,
the minutes which refer to the other procedural actions carried out in accordance with this Code,
the explanations of the person in respect of whom the contravention proceedings were initiated,
the testimony of the victim, witnesses, documents, audio or video recordings, photographs, exhibits, objects and documents seized, technical-scientific and forensic findings, expert's report.
The assessment of the evidence shall be made by a qualified person to deal with the contravention case according to his or her belief, therefore the appropriate conclusion will be reached by examining all the evidence given in relation to the enacted minute.
42. According to Art. 425 para. (7) of the Contravention Code, to the contraventional process are applied the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to evidence and evidentiary procedures, with the exceptions provided for in this Code.
43. And, according to Article 101 para. (1)-(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Moldova,
each piece of evidence is to be assessed in terms of its relevance, conclusiveness, usefulness and truthfulness, and all the evidence as a whole - in terms of its corroboration.
The judge assesses the evidence according to his own conviction, formed after examining it as a whole, in all aspects and objectively, guided by the law.
44. In this case, the College indicates that
the investigating officer of the Buiucani Police Inspectorate, Chisinau Police Department, IGP of the MAI, serial/nr. MAI, no. 05291628, from 22.09.2021, administered as well other evidences,
which clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the
guilt of ***** Igor
of committing the act of Defamation,
actions manifested by spreading defamatory and untruthful information
about the victim ***** Vladimir Vasile.
45. Therefore, the action of defamation is carried out by
knowingly spreading of false information
accompanied by accusations of committing offences,
so that the person committing such acts realises that the the information made public does not correspond to the truth and
results in unfounded accusations against a person,
in the absence of data confirming the alleged criminal acts.
The crime of defamation, knowing the method of its realisation by disseminating and bringing to the attention of the general public denigrating information, followed by the accusation of committing a crime,
is manifested by accusations of committing abuses in the realisation of the person's procedural rights, including the direct incrimination of acts falling under criminal law.
46. In the present case,
the action for libel was brought by the public information,
namely for the purpose of defaming the victim about the commission of criminal acts, and in this respect,
having analysed the evidence evidence,
namely the audio recording and the transcript annexed to the the materials of the contravention case,
it is clear that the contravener ***** Igor
in the broadcast "Secrets of Power", on the "Jurnal Tv" television programme on 23.09.2020,
brought the victim ***** Vladimir Vasile,
some clear and unjustified accusations about some alleged criminal acts,
all the more so on air accusing him of involvement in various acts of corruption, under the aegis of alleged criminal groups,
which is not the case, does not correspond to reality.
47. The College reiterates that
despite the information submitted by the contravener and his lawyer
according to which the Central Office for the Repression of Major Financial Crimes investigates a certain criminal case against ***** Vladimir Vasile,
this fact does not confer the right the contravener to make such information available to the general public, much less it does not justify the public allegations made by the contravener ***** Igor,
or, in the context of Article 8 para. (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova,
"the person accused of committing a crime is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been proven in the manner provided for in this Code, in a public judicial trial, in which he shall be provided with all guarantees necessary for his defence, and has not been found guilty by a court of law in a public final conviction".
48. Therefore,
in the absence of an irrevocable judgement sentencing the victim ***** Vladimir Vasile, in other countries
referred to in the "Secrets of power", on the TV channel "Jurnal Tv" - from 23.09.2020,
the contravener ***** Igor had no right to bring the charges about the involvement in various criminal acts of the victim ***** Vladimir.
49. The College notes that in the programme "Secrets of Power", on television programme "Jurnal Tv" - of 23.09.2020,
the contravener did not admit some mere value judgments, as alleged in the appeal filed, in the situation where itself from the manner of exposure by the contravener in the show, where
inadmissible accusations were brought live
about the commission of criminal acts,
about other immoral actions,
moreover, the contravener ***** Igor,
as a former lawyer of the victim ***** Vladimir in a criminal case,
disclosed and gave to the general public some data and direct ways of committing various criminal schemes by the victim ***** Vladimir, thus more about his involvement with other people in committing criminal acts,
statements that have been shown to be untrue.
50. Therefore,
the appellant's allegations regarding the alleged value judgments cannot be retained, or they represent an unjustified method of misleading the court, and of disguising defamatory actions and unreal accusations brought to the victim, or, from the audio-video recording itself of the "Secrets of Power" show, from the "Jurnal Tv" television channel - from 23.09.2020,
it is clear that the contravener ***** Igor accuses the victim ***** Vladimir of some serious crimes, and with all the more criminal schemes for money laundering, corruption, etc., acts allegedly committed on the territory of other states,
however,
the contravener did not present any irrevocable judicial act that would demonstrate the facts of which he publicly accused ***** Vladimir, or the conviction of the latter on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, does not constitute a moral or legal right for a person to incriminate other allegedly criminal acts committed on the territory of other countries.
51. Within the TV programme "Secrets of Power", on the television channel "Jurnal TV" - from 23.09.2020,
the contravener ***** Igor
blamed ***** Vladimir on other criminal acts,
manifested through the influence in the political sphere etc., committed through other persons,
who intervened during the broadcast and rejected the allegations and disputed the statements made against ***** Vladimir regarding the alleged criminal acts of peddling influence.
52. Value judgments include the expression of a person’s opinion on the professional, moral and personal qualities of the other person, and factual statements include the expression of allegations regarding certain determined actions - ECHR judgement, Harlanova v Lithuania.
53. In other words, value judgement is an opinion of a person about another person, or his activity, without admitting statements that go beyond the limit of freedom of expression, i.e. in terms of the inadmissibility of unjustified accusations, and which do not correspond to reality,
a situation also present in the "Secrets of power", from the TV channel "Jurnal Tv" - from 23.09.2020,
where the contravener ***** Igor on air and clearly exposed himself on the personality, actions, political and professional activity of the victim ***** Vladimir,
accusing him of involvement in various criminal acts of banditry, corruption, influence peddling, etc., and
even calling him a bandit, corrupt, but also describing his activity in all its negative aspects, thus strongly denigrating the victim's personal and professional honour and dignity,
which is not at all within the limits of value judgments, representing clear accusations of committing certain acts of criminal offences.
54. Therefore, in the present case,
the focus on the existing conviction of the victim
is merely a clear camouflage of the crime commission allegations, and not only of corruption, but also of theft, money laundering, etc.,
thus a judicial act of conviction does not give another person the right to incriminate other acts of which he has been convicted,
in this case from the recording of the broadcast "Secrets of power", from the TV channel "Jurnal TV"
- it is clear that the contravener ***** Igor called ***** Vladimir bandit, corrupt, thief, etc.,
and these were exposed in a different context than the charge for which the victim was convicted in 2016.
(Red.: For better understanding we propose to read Nr. 54 like this:
Therefore, in the present case,
the focus on the existing conviction in 2016 because of corruption of the victim
is merely a clear camouflage of the crime commission allegations, and not only of corruption, but also of theft, money laundering, etc..
In this case from the recording of the broadcast "Secrets of power", from the TV channel "Jurnal TV" it is clear that the contravener ***** Igor called ***** Vladimir bandit, corrupt, thief, etc..
Thus as a judicial act of conviction does not give another person the right to incriminate other acts than the ones of which he has been convicted,
and as these (Red.: allegations) were exposed in a different context than the charge for which the victim was convicted in 2016,
these allegations are not covered by the existing convictions.)
55. In other matters, the College, having considered the minutes on the report of the contravention,
the Board notes that the official did not admit any omissions or Article 443 of the Contravention Code, which would affect the merits of the case and cannot be covered by the court,
moreover, the contravener's allegations raised in the appeal under this chapter have been dealt with and properly assessed by the court on the merits.
56. Likewise, the College indicates that the evidence administered during the contravention trial was accumulated in compliance with procedural rules, being pertinent, conclusive and useful.
57. In the light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeal finds that
the arguments put forward by the appellant in the appeal are declaratory,
that is why it
rejects the appeal against the decision of the Court of Chișinău, Ciocana headquarters of 17 January 2022.
58. In accordance with the provisions of Article 473(1)(c), Art. 474 of the Contravention Code, Criminal College of the Chisinau Court of Appeal,-
DECIDES:
Dismiss as unfounded the appeal brought by ***** Grigore in the interests of the contravener ***** Igor.
Uphold without modification the judgement of the Chisinau Court, Ciocana headquarters of 17 January 2022, which partially admitted the appeal lodged by the lawyer ***** Grigore in the interests of the contravener ***** Igor, and terminated the contravention proceedings, initiated under Article 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code, against ***** Igor,
on the ground that the limitation period has expired of the time-limit for bringing an action for a misdemeanour and dismissed the remainder as unfounded the appeal brought by the lawyer ***** Grigore in the interests of ***** Igor, against the official minute concerning the contravention and the decision of the investigating officer of the Buiucani Police Inspectorate, Chisinau Police Department, IGP of the MAI, series/no. MAI, no. 05291628, from 22.09.2021, in the part of the ***** Igor's guilt of committing contravention of Art. 70 para. (2) of the Contravention Code.
The decision is irrevocable.
The President of the sitting, Judge Bulhac Ion
Judges Lîsîi Ghenadie
Morozan Ghenadie