Global Freedom of Expression

Urechean v. Moldova

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting
  • Date of Decision
    April 20, 2015
  • Outcome
    Article 6 Violation
  • Case Number
    27756/05, 41219/07
  • Region & Country
    Moldova, Republic of, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law, International/Regional Human Rights Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

This case concerned two members of an opposition party who filed a defamation claim against the president of Moldova for statements the president made on two television programs. The domestic courts dismissed the claims on the grounds that the president enjoyed immunity from civil prosecutions while in office. The two politicians then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”), alleging that, by refusing to hear the defamation claims, Moldova had effectively denied the politicians their right of access to a court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The ECtHR agreed.


The Applicants, Mr. Urechean and Ms. Pavlicenco, were politicians and members of a political party that opposed then-president of Moldova. The Respondent is the Republic of Moldova.

In 2004 and 2007, the then-president of Moldova appeared on two television programs in which he stated that “during the ten years of activity as a Mayor of Chisinau, [Mr. Urechean] did nothing but [] create a very powerful mafia-style system of corruption,” and that Ms. Pavlicenco  “came straight from the KGB.”

Based on these statements, the Applicants each brought libel actions against the president, and each of their claims were dismissed. The Moldovan courts found that the president enjoyed a presidential immunity from civil prosecution and could therefore not be held responsible for the opinions he expressed on the television programs. The Applicants then filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) alleging that, by dismissing their claims, Moldova had violated their Article 6 right of access to a court under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

Decision Overview

In reaching its decision, the ECtHR considered that it is generally acceptable for heads of state to enjoy prosecutorial immunity for certain civil actions performed in their function as head of state. Indeed, the Court noted that such immunities are often essential to the separation of powers in democratic societies.

Nevertheless, the ECtHR considered the immunity granted to Moldova’s president to be overbroad. The Court found that, in order to adequately protect the functions of democracy, such immunities must be restrictive and clearly defined. The immunity granted to Moldova’s president did not set out any limits, and most significantly, it did not prescribe limits to the immunity against libel actions. Thus, the domestic courts were given free range to apply the immunity where they saw fit, and they did so without any inquiry into competing interests that may have justified a more restrictive view of the immunity.

Therefore, because the domestic courts applied the immunity in a manner that effectively restricted the Applicants’ access to a domestic court, the ECtHR found that Moldova had violated the Applicants’ right of access to a court under Article 6 ECHR.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The ECtHR found that the Moldovan president’s immunity from libel suits was too broad because it effectively denied those who would bring libel claims their Article 6 right of access to a court under the ECHR. On one hand, this restricts the president’s ability to say whatever he wants, but on the other, it enables those who would be defamed by the president to have their day in court. It also encourages honest public debate by broadening the accountability of the executive. Thus, overall, this case expands the freedom of expression.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], App. No. 26083/94 (1999)
  • ECtHR, Tsalkitzis v. Greece, App. No. 11801/04 (2006)
  • ECtHR, A. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35373/97 (2003)
  • ECtHR, De Jorio v. Italy, App. No. 73936/01(2004)
  • ECtHR, Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), App. No. 40877/98 (2003)
  • ECtHR, Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), App. No. 45649/99 (2003)
  • ECtHR, Manole and Others v. Moldova, App. No. 13936/02 (2009)
  • ECtHR, C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, App. No. 46967/07 (2009)
  • ECtHR, Syngelidis v. Greece, App. No. 24895/07 (2010)
  • ECHR, art. 6

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

This case puts ECtHR States Parties on notice that laws prescribing prosecutorial immunity to the head of state, while often essential to a democratic society, must be restrictive and clearly defined. They must not be construed to deny citizens’ right of access to a court.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback