003-5320201-6627117

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 087 (2016)   08.03.2016   Judgments of 8 March 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; for one other, in the case of Bilen and Çoruk   v. Turkey (application no. 14895/05), a separate press release has been issued;   three Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Morari v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 65311/09)   The applicant, Oleg Morari, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1979 and lives in Chisinau. The   case concerned an allegation of police entrapment.   In December 2008 Mr Morari was convicted of participating in the production of a false Romanian   identity card. His conviction was based on evidence obtained during an undercover operation.   Notably, in January 2008 the Balti police had placed an advertisement in a newspaper concerning   help in obtaining passports to which Mr Morari had replied. Following the telephone call, he met   with an undercover agent who said that he was also looking to obtain a Romanian passport. Both   men agreed to keep one another informed if they found an easy way to obtain a passport. A few   weeks later the agent contacted Mr Morari to enquire whether he had made any progress in his   search. Mr Morari informed the agent that he had found a person who could help and, when the   agent refused to contact this person directly but proposed a deal involving one of his acquaintances   (another undercover agent), agreed to act as an intermediary in the arrangement. On concluding the   deal in April 2008, he was arrested by the police.   The first-instance court did not consider Mr Morari’s entrapment plea. The two higher courts which   examined his appeal and appeal on points of law (in March 2009 and July 2009, respectively)   examined his allegation of entrapment, but dismissed it on the ground that it was Mr Morari who   had been the first to call the telephone number in the advertisement. All the courts refused to hear   the undercover agents, finding that according to the law, they could be heard only if they consented   to having their identities disclosed.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Morari   alleged that he had been a victim of police entrapment and that the courts had failed to examine   this complaint in the proceedings against him.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 3,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,820 (costs and expenses)   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Rusu v. Romania (no. 25721/04)   The applicant, Sergiu-Cristian Rusu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in   Suceava (Romania). He was a journalist for a local newspaper, Monitorul de Suceava.   In August 2003 Mr Rusu published an article about a criminal investigation into a burglary, reporting   that the main suspect, S.A., was on the run and wanted throughout the country by the police. S.A.’s   father immediately wrote to the newspaper, explaining that it was impossible that his son had   committed the burglary as he had been in Italy at the time. The newspaper subsequently published   the letter.   In September 2003 S.A. lodged a criminal complaint against Mr Rusu for defamation, complaining   that, even though his father’s letter had been published, the article had not been retracted as   requested. The courts ultimately – in a final judgment of January 2004 – cleared Mr Rusu of   defamation, finding that the information he had published had been provided by official sources,   namely the local police department’s judicial service. However, they considered that Mr Rusu should   have retracted the article as soon as he had become aware that the information he had published   was wrong. The courts therefore found that he was responsible for the damage caused to S.A. and   he was ordered to pay approximately 270 euros in compensation.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, Mr Rusu complained that   the national courts’ decision ordering him to pay compensation had breached his freedom of   expression, notably alleging that the obligation to rectify the article had been complied with when   the letter by S.A.’s father had been published.   No violation of Article 10   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2