NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, No. 28470/12, ECtHR (Grand Chamber), 5 April 2022

Withdrawal of a broadcasting licence after the repeated breach of the statutory requirement to ensure political pluralism in the media. Lawful interference with freedom of expression.

Art. 10 ECHR

1.    There is no democracy without pluralism. Ensuring pluralism in the audio-visual sector in a democratic society does not simply mean promoting different channels or allowing potential operators to access the audio-visual market. It is also about ensuring the diversity of overall program contents, reflecting as much as possible the variety of opinions existing in the society at which they are aimed. States are responsible for establishing a legislative and administrative framework capable of achieving effective media pluralism.

2.    In assessing media pluralism, aspects of internal pluralism – i.e., the openness of the media to the different political and cultural trends in a country – and external pluralism – i.e., the need to ensure a plurality of voices in all media and thus to avoid situations of market dominance of a few broadcasting companies – must be considered in combination. The lack of internal pluralism could in fact be balanced by external pluralism and vice versa.

3.    Although the Convention leaves little room for interference in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the case of political speech, very severe sanctions, such as the withdrawal of a broadcasting license, may be deemed necessary in a democratic society to counter practices that undermine political media pluralism.

(In the instant case, the NIT television channel’s broadcasting license had been revoked given the harsh criticisms of members of the Moldovan government during various tv programs and the support shown for the opposition parties. The applicant company, therefore, complained of a violation of Article 10 ECHR. The Court judged the interference with the right to freedom of expression necessary in a democratic society and found that the national authorities had struck a fair balance between the public interest in safeguarding media pluralism, on the one hand, and the protection of the applicant company's freedom of expression, on the other).