Petrenco v. the Republic of Moldova
30 March 2010
At the time of the events, the applicant was the Chairman of the Association of
Historians of the Republic of Moldova and a university professor. He complained that his
reputation was damaged as a result of the publication, in April 2002, of statements in
the official newspaper of the Moldovan Government, implying that he had collaborated
with the KGB.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention, finding that the reasons advanced by the Moldovan tribunals to
protect the right to freedom of expression of the newspaper and the author of the
impugned article were insufficient to outweigh the applicant's right to respect for his
reputation. The Court observed in particular that the article had been published in the
context of a lively debate of significant public interest and that the applicant, who was a
public figure, had had to tolerate higher public scrutiny and criticism than had he been a
private citizen. Therefore the general tone of the article and the insulting language had
not in themselves breached the applicant’s right to respect for his reputation. However,
by implying that the applicant had collaborated with the KGB as though it had been an
established fact when it had been a mere speculation on the part of the author, the
article had overstepped the limits of acceptable comments in the context of a debate of a
general interest.
amaral has treated death in the apartment as an established fact when it is only speculation IMO
