Avocatul meu in cauza “Pavlicenco versus R.Moldova”, aflata la CEDO, mi-a spus ca i-a fost transmisa Decizia de comunicare, ceea ce inseamna ca a fost comunicata si Guvernului R.Moldova.
Cauza “Pavlicenco versus R.Moldova” (un dosar intentat de Vitalia Pavlicenco impotriva ex-Presedintelui Vladimir Voronin, pentru calomniile proferate la NIT la adresa persoanei mele) a fost depusa la sfirsitul anului 2007, dupa ce cauza nu a fost examinata pina la capat in R.Moldova din motivul ca “un Presedinte de stat, in exercitiul functiunii, nu poate fi tras la raspundere”.
In prezent, CEDO comunica R.Moldova cauzele depuse la sfirsitul anului 2005 – inceputul anului 2006. Pina in vara anului 2009, CEDO examina, de obicei, cauzele in functie de data parvenirii lor la Curte. De atunci, CEDO a decis sa examineze cauzele in functie de importanta lor. Faptul ca a fost comunicata Guvernului Republicii Moldova cererea mea, depusa in 2007, inseamna ca CEDO a considerat-o importanta.
Perioada de la finalizarea acestor proceduri pina la adoptarea hotaririi dureaza, de obicei, pina la 8 luni, poate si mai mult.
Cum se stabileste importanta unei cause? Grefierul le analizeaza, face analiza tuturor cauzelor, dupa care Presedintele Camerei sau plenul judecatorilor uneia dintre cele 5 sectiuni ale acesteia iau Decizie de comunicare a cauzei luate pe rol Guvernului statului, unde locuieste reclamantul, precum si avocatului.
Prezint, in continuare, materialele in limba engleza, primate de la avocat.
Vitalia Pavlicenco
Organizaţia Obştească
Juriştii pentru Drepturile Omului
str. Vlaicu Pârcălab 2, bir. 13
MD-2009 CHIŞINĂU
REP. MOLDOVA
FOURTH SECTION
ECHR-LE4.1aR 13 January 2010
RP/scu
Application no. 41219/07
Pavlicenco v. Moldova
Dear Sir,
I write to inform you that following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the above application on 6 January 2010, the President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Moldova and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
The application lends itself to having its admissibility and merits examined at the same time, in accordance with Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 54A. Consequently, should the Court consider the application admissible and ready for determination on the merits, it may immediately adopt a judgment under Rule 54A § 2.
The Government have been requested to submit their observations by 5 May 2010. These will be sent to you in order that you may submit written observations in reply on behalf of the applicant, together with any claim for just satisfaction under Article 41 (cf. Rule 60).
The Government have been requested to deal with the question set out in the document appended to this letter (Statement of facts prepared by the Registry of the Court and Question to the parties).
The Government have been informed that no observations are required on the other complaints raised in the application.
The Government have also been requested to indicate within the above time-limit their position regarding a friendly settlement of this case and to submit any proposals they may wish to make in this regard (Rule 62). The same request will be made of you when you receive their observations.
I would inform you that at this stage of the proceedings, according to Rule 34 § 3, all communications of applicants or their representatives shall as a rule be made in one of the Court’s official languages, English or French.
I should draw your attention to Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, according to which documents deposited with the Registry by the parties or by any third parties are to be accessible to the public, unless the President decides otherwise for the reasons set out in Rule 33 § 2. It follows that as a general rule any information contained in the documents which you lodge with the Registry, including information about identified or identifiable persons, may be accessible to the public. Moreover, such information may appear in the Court’s HUDOC data base accessible via the Internet if the Court includes it in a statement of facts prepared for notification of a case to the respondent Government, a decision on admissibility or striking off, or a judgment.
Yours faithfully,
{signature_p_1}
T.L. Early
Section Registrar
Encs: Statement of facts and Question
13 January 2010
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 41219/07
by Vitalia PAVLICENCO
against Moldova
lodged on 10 September 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Vitalia Pavlicenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Gribincea, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a politician who was, at the time of the events, a member of a parliamentary opposition party.
On 3 March 2007 the President of Moldova participated in a televised programme on a private channel with nation-wide coverage. He declared, inter alia, that the applicant used to belong to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB.
On 3 April 2007 the applicant lodged a civil defamation complaint against President Voronin and asked compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On 25 April 2007 the Centru District Court struck the applicant’s action out of the list of cases on the ground that Mr Voronin had immunity and could not be held responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate as President. The court relied on Article 81 § 2 of the Constitution.
The applicant appealed against the decision and argued, inter alia, that the solution was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. She also submitted that the President had not expressed an opinion but had made a statement of fact and that he had not been exercising his presidential functions when doing so.
On 14 June 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It did not examine any of the grounds for appeal invoked by the applicant but merely confirmed the decision of the first-instance court.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Article 81 § 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova reads as follows:
“The President of the Republic of Moldova enjoys immunity. He cannot be held responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate.”
The domestic courts examined previously a case in which a businessman filed a defamation complaint against the leader of the parliamentary opposition. The complaint concerned statements made in a newspaper interview. The courts held, in a final judgment of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 18 March 2004, that the defendant could not rely on his parliamentary immunity because the impugned statements had not been made in the exercise of his mandate.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she did not have access to a court.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant denied her right of access to a court for the determination of her civil rights, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the principles stated in Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, §§ 79-84, 3 December 2009)?