Ro
En
Рy
Dinu Ciocan, BCC chairman
As regards information about the persons owning several channels, the Broadcasting Code says that an individual or a legal entity can be the majority owner of not more than 2 broadcasters of different types, and a broadcaster can hold up to 5 broadcasting licenses. In Plahotniuc’s case, there are 2 broadcasters of different types – one broadcaster holds 4 broadcasting licenses and the other holds 3 licenses. Overall, there are 7 broadcasting licenses. In theory, an individual or a legal entity, according to the Broadcasting Code, can hold up to 10 broadcasting licenses. Currently, we have no individual or legal entity owning up to 2 broadcasters of different types and holding more than 10 broadcasting licenses.
Petru Macovei, media expert 
The provisions of article 66 of the Broadcasting Code can be subjected to interpretation, and it is one more argument proving that the law is outdated and that we need a new Code. In my opinion, the specification that “a person can be majority investor or shareholder in not more than two broadcasters of different types” should be understood in the sense that nobody can have more than two channels, period. In our situation, however, for the same reason of ambiguous formulations in the Code, one might understand also that someone can have up to 10 channels. The adoption of a new Broadcasting Code should be sped up, and it should include clear provisions against concentration of media ownership. The BCC [Broadcasting Coordinating Council] should stop behaving as a passive actor on the broadcasting market. Since it is a guarantor of public interest, the BCC should demand the Parliament to respect the interest of the absolute majority of citizens to have pluralistic information, and not four-seven-ten channels that choose information according to the wishes of one single person.
Eugeniu Rîbca, media law expert 
According to article 66 of the Broadcasting Code, an individual or a legal entity can hold not more than 5 broadcasting licenses in one administrative-territorial unit or region and cannot have exclusivity. Under the following paragraph, an individual or a legal entity from the country or from abroad can be investor or majority shareholder, direct or indirect, at no more than 2 broadcasters of different types. Therefore, these 2 paragraphs of the Broadcasting Code contain some contradictions, provisions that can be differently interpreted. Under these contradictory provisions, one person is allowed to be investor in not more than 2 broadcasters, which is not quite clear. It is a legislative problem, which should be addressed by the Parliament, usually at the proposal of the BCC.
At the moment, the Broadcasting Code contains several contradictions. Quite possibly, they were created intentionally to acknowledge, as I am doing now, the inapplicability of the law.
The problem of concentration is difficult. On the one hand, we have two competent authorities in the field. One is the BCC, which has the obligation to avoid monopolization and concentration in the field, among other things. The BCC should have considered this fact when it approved a license to be issued to the same owner, therefore, when it issued broadcasting licenses. At the same time, it should have thought of this fact when it accepted a license being transferred from one owner to the current owner. So, it is a trouble of the BCC, which now has to correct its mistakes, violations of the current legislation. On the other hand, we have a Competition Council, which has to become involved in solving this situation. Unfortunately, the Competition Council does not intervene in this segment. The best solution, as practice shows, is the intervention of the Moldovan Parliament, which should set clear rules concerning the number of broadcasting licenses that a beneficial owner can hold. In this case, we are speaking about beneficial owner Plahotniuc.
Ion Bunduchi, media expert 
Here is what I understand: No one in Chisinau (as a territorial-administrative unit), for example, can have more than 5 broadcasting licenses, either for national, regional, local or mixed broadcasters, no more than 5. As for types, the law classifies them not into radio and television, but into public/private, national, regional and local broadcasters (article 5). So, the other 2 licenses, more than the 5, should be in another administrative-territorial unit or zone, according to the law. If they are in the same unit, I see violation of the law.
Legal rules should be used to remove illegalities in this segment, and then, by issuing licenses, one should not allow violations of the law.
Also, we should amend the legislation so as not to allow emergence of monopolies and/or dominant positions on the media market. For example, to establish exactly how much advertising (20%, 25%, 30%) a broadcaster can access on the entire market of advertising.
In all situations, the ball is in the decision makers’ field.
Vitalie Călugăreanu, Deutsche Welle journalist 
From a legal point of view, the BCC should react, because regulatory levers are in its hands.
In my opinion, 7 licenses in the hands of a single person seriously affect pluralism of opinion. By having 7 important media outlets, as Plahotniuc does, channels with national coverage, you can very easily manipulate the public opinion. From this point of view, the legislative forum should make a decision in the sense of lowering this number. A legislative rule is needed. Beyond the fact that ownership must be made public and owners must be known, the BCC should come with an appeal to the Parliament in order to regulate legislation so as not to allow one political person, and not only political, to hold more than 2 licenses, as it is in developed countries.
