Public position on Decision (42 of 04.05.2012) CCA in the withdrawal of the broadcasting license of NIT (from 10.04.2012)[EN]
Poziţia publică cu privire la Decizia (42 din 05.04.2012) Consiliului Coordonator al Audiovizualului în partea retragerii licenţei de emisie a postului de televiziune NIT (din 10.04.2012)[RO]
Общественное мнение насчёт решения (42 из 04.05.2012) CCA o отзыве лицензии на вещание НИТ (от 10.04.2012)[RU]

Conclusion

CCA decision although apparently legal form contrary to the principles of freedom of speech guaranteed by Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Procedural violate freedom of expression by putting the decision into effect without respecting the right to appeal the decision to suspend the license. In substance it violates the right to freedom of speech in that it is not necessary in a democratic society and ¬ is proportional protect legitimate interests.

Acts and regulations

NIT is notorious for systematic violations of the Broadcasting Code - CA-(failure of political pluralism, a party favor, false electoral campaigns in disclosure, denigrating political opponents). Monitoring (Note 1) made for the period called CCA findings specialized media organizations show systematic violations during electoral periods. CA provides for license revocation - the most severe sanction - is applied gradually after applying sanctions and fines if the broadcaster does not enter legality. Broadcaster must attack time and availability CCA decision as administrative contentious procedure.

Review Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that freedom of expression may be restricted only if) it is required by law, 2) is necessary in a democratic society, and 3) to protect a legitimate interest, ie order public security. Substantive law on freedom of speech does not justify interference penalty. BCC Decision no. 42 (05.04.2012) apparently meets the statutory and withdrawal broadcasting license (38 (1) e)), after being fined (38 (3) c) in the case of serious and repeated 38 (5)) of the rules code. Monitoring undertaken do not provide sufficient evidential basis (Note 1). CCA applied warnings, fines and license suspensions and advertising, but the application programs or temporary suspension of the broadcasting license has not been sufficiently explored.

Analysis that show deficiencies quality and very decision that the law does not refer to the need for restraint in the current society. The law does not prescribe how the decision not evaluate proportional license revocation against the danger of NIT. Law lacks clear test to assess the negative impact therefore no formal law is applied with reference to the danger created. Alleged damage alleged public order and national security is not shown. Since there were no certified incitement to violence, calls to overthrow the public order or other repeated calls for disturbing the public order, but many information about "organizing protests against the current government" lawful assembly. Actual danger posed to disturb public order or national security harm is not shown and is part of the trend. Procedural right to freedom of expression is not respected. Immediate withdrawal of the license without guaranteeing the right to challenge the decision does not comply with the law (Article 38 (10)) on the ground that administrative litigation law provides 30 days (17 (3)) for the realization of this right.

Or, immediate execution of the decision violates the right to freedom of expression procedural. ECHR jurisprudence confirms that the most drastic sanction of withdrawal of the license is an exception. Özgür Radyo Ses cases, Tanita Ve Radyo Televizyon Yayin Yapım A.Ş. against Turkey, nos. 64178/00, 64179/00, 64181/00, 64183/00, 64184/00), Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04) ECHR stated that programs can be culpable for inciting articles and challenge people, but the suspension in this case for a year the license is disproportionate to protect the legitimate interests and not necessary "in a democratic society". Application of the most drastic measures must be correlated with the negative impact brought public order and national security and is included in European practice.

Conclusions and Recommendations

CCA during 2010-11 and appropriate sanctions applied correctly across the line editorial and journalistic behavior and political nepluralist affiliate of NIT's. BCC should apply sanctions of administrative offenses, to initiate a criminal investigation against the producers, editors, columnist programs - as provides - and not the company as a whole. Decision to withdraw the license is disproportionate as intervention and has a punitive capital.

Educational and other punitive measures discussed below would have been more relevant situation, violations and eventual danger created mimicking fairness, pluralism and ethical journalism NIT. ACC decision to be reviewed on its own, first by suspending it because the company to realize the right to challenge this in court. Secondly, the decision should be reviewed on its own for more moderate sanctions, such as suspension of programs or license suspension for a longer period of advertising, taking decisions on administrative offenses (38 (6)) to initiate criminal cases.

It is necessary to amend the CA by widening spectrum of sanctions and mechanisms applicable. These may include preventive prescriptions, such as to ensure the presence of opponents on issues such as democratic countries experience is enhanced. There is a need for continuous monitoring of all programs longer period.

Contacts: Ostaf Resource Centre for Human Rights (CReDO), tel. 212816, ostaf@credo.md