Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined that there was no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), thereby affirming the domestic courts’ civil defamation conviction against a newspaper. The dispute involved a Moldovan newspaper that was held liable for defamation after publishing serious allegations against a high school principal, including claims of bribery, misuse of funds, and unethical behavior—based on an anonymous letter and hearsay. The Court observed that the newspaper failed to verify the claims, did not seek the principal’s response before publication, and rejected his request to publish a reply. It underscored that freedom of expression entails responsibilities, such as adhering to journalistic ethics—especially when publishing accusations that harm an individual’s reputation. The ECtHR considered that the domestic courts had properly assessed the case and reached a fair decision after balancing the principal’s right to reputation with the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression. Considering the modest amount of damages awarded and the unprofessional conduct of the newspaper, the Court concluded that the interference with the newspaper’s freedom of expression was justified.

---

Facts

On 4 February 2003,  Flux, a newspaper based in Chişinău, Moldova, published an article criticizing conditions at the Spiru Haret High School. The article relied on an anonymous letter purportedly sent by a group of parents, which alleged several serious issues at the school. The letter claimed that the school was overcrowded, lacked proper facilities, and that the principal had misappropriated school funds for personal benefit—for example, to decorate his office and build a private bathroom. It further alleged that the principal solicited bribes for enrolling students and had launched a school newspaper that only published content on relationships and sex. The parents stated they chose to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation against their children. Notably, Flux did not independently investigate or verify these allegations but published the anonymous letter in full, presenting its content as factual.

Following the article’s publication, the principal and the editorial staff of the school’s newspaper requested Flux to publish a reply. However, Flux rejected their request, citing the offensive tone of the proposed reply. The principal and staff eventually published their response in another local newspaper, Jurnal de Chişinău. In their reply, they accused Flux of violating journalistic ethics by publishing unverified accusations. They argued that the newspaper’s actions amounted to sensationalism, as Flux failed to investigate the claims or seek the school’s perspective before publishing the letter.

On 14 February 2003, Flux published a second article, responding to the criticism raised by the principal and the editorial team. In this article, Flux defended its decision to publish the original letter, reiterating the allegations against the principal and emphasizing the seriousness of the accusations. The article also referenced the testimony of a former university colleague of the principal, who alleged that bribes were solicited during an attempt to enroll his daughter at the school.

In response, the principal initiated civil defamation proceedings against Flux. He argued that the articles contained numerous defamatory statements, such as the unsubstantiated claim that he solicited bribes. During the trial, Flux presented three witnesses, including V.L., whose testimony supported the claim that bribes were solicited by the principal. However, on 18 September 2003, the Buiucani District Court ruled in favor of the principal. The court considered that the bribery allegations were untrue and defamatory, as Flux failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate them. Furthermore, it stated that the presumption of innocence required a criminal conviction to establish bribery, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the court ordered Flux to publish an apology within 15 days and pay 1,350 Moldovan Lei (approximately EUR 88) in damages.

Both the principal and Flux appealed the judgment. On 23 December 2003, the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. The appellate court acknowledged that the principal, as a public figure, was required to tolerate a higher degree of criticism. However, it concluded that Flux had acted irresponsibly by publishing unverified allegations without adequate investigation.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, Flux lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court of Justice of Moldova, arguing that its articles sought to address matters of significant public interest—particularly the issue of corruption within educational institutions. Flux contended that punishing it for publishing allegations substantiated by witnesses’ testimonies was disproportionate and infringed on its right to freedom of expression. On 31 March 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the newspaper had failed to show a sufficient factual basis for its claims. The court reaffirmed that serious accusations, such as bribery, require strong evidence, which Flux had not provided.

Dissatisfied with these decisions, Flux brought its case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), alleging that the Moldovan courts violated its right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

---

Decision Overview

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment on 29 July 2008. The main issue before the Court was whether the Moldovan authorities’ decision to hold Flux civilly liable for defamation—after publishing corruption accusations against a high school principal—was a justified restriction on freedom of expression in a democratic society.

Flux, the applicant newspaper, argued that its articles were published in the public interest and sought to expose alleged acts of corruption within the Moldovan education system. It contended that it had a duty as a “public watchdog” to report on such matters and that its reporting was based on an anonymous letter from parents, which it considered credible.

The Moldovan Government, for its part, argued that Flux had failed to meet its duties and responsibilities, under Article 10(2) of the ECHR, which require journalists to act in good faith and verify their sources. The Government held that Flux did not conduct an independent investigation before publishing serious accusations against the principal. Furthermore, it argued that national authorities have the discretion to decide when an interference is necessary, as they are primarily responsible for interpreting domestic law under the Convention. In this case, Moldova claimed that the authorities acted within their legal limits, making fair and careful decisions in good faith.

To reach its decision, the Court relied on Article 10 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression while permitting restrictions necessary in a democratic society for protecting the rights of others. It also considered Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects individuals from unwarranted attacks on their reputation. Considering this, the Court said that, although the press plays an essential role in a democracy, journalists must act responsibly and ensure that accusations of misconduct are based on reliable evidence.

Subsequently, the Court reiterated the fundamental role of the press in a democratic society, stating that the media must be allowed to report on issues of public concern, such as corruption. However, it emphasized that freedom of expression is not absolute and carries duties and responsibilities, particularly when reporting accusations that could harm an individual’s reputation. The ECtHR cited Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom to underscore that the press serves as a “public watchdog” but must balance this role with ethical responsibilities.

In light of the above, the Court analyzed whether Flux had fulfilled its journalistic standards of due diligence. According to it, the newspaper did not attempt to verify the anonymous allegations before publication, nor seek the principal’s response before making the bribery claims public. Additionally, when the principal requested a reply, Flux refused to publish it, which the ECtHR viewed as a failure to uphold ethical journalism.

On this point, the Court referred to Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway to argue that the press must act in good faith to provide “accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.” [para. 26] Additionally, the Court considered its earlier ruling in Pfeifer v. Austria—regarding the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation—, to highlight that Article 10 does not permit unrestricted attacks on an individual’s dignity.

Regarding the nature of the accusations, the Court determined that the bribery claims amounted to a direct assertion of criminal conduct, which required a particularly high standard of proof. While Flux presented three witnesses in court who supported the bribery allegations, the Court found that the newspaper’s failure to verify the claims before publication undermined its credibility.

Although the ECtHR did not endorse the Buiucani District Court’s reasoning that bribery allegations required a prior criminal conviction, it did consider that Flux had acted irresponsibly by publishing serious allegations without sufficient factual basis.

Upon addressing the proportionality of the interference to freedom of expression, the Court observed that the monetary penalty imposed on Flux was relatively modest (approximately EUR 88) and did not amount to an excessive restriction on the aforementioned right. The Court concluded that, given the applicant newspaper’s failure to act in accordance with responsible journalism, the interference with its right to freedom of expression was justified.

The ECtHR held, by four votes to three, that Moldova did not violate Article 10 of the ECHR. It concluded that Flux’s failure to verify serious allegations before publication, and its refusal to grant a reply, constituted a flagrant disregard for responsible journalism. Given the relatively minor financial penalty imposed on the applicant, the Court ruled that domestic courts struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and the protection of the principal’s reputation.

Concurring or dissenting opinions

A dissenting opinion was issued by Judge Bonello, joined by Judges Björgvinsson and Šikuta, who argued that the decision unduly restricted press freedom and created a chilling effect on investigative journalism. The dissenting judges emphasized that Flux had presented credible witnesses in court who supported the bribery allegations. To them, requiring a criminal conviction before publishing allegations of corruption was an unreasonable restriction on free expression. The dissenting judges warned that the ruling placed journalistic ethics above the press’ duty to uncover public wrongdoings and undermined the essential role of the media in a democratic society.

---