SCJ sent for retrial the case of the former judge Vasilevici against a group of media outlets, which allegedly disseminated false information about her

On 27 March, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) quashed the decision of the Chisinau Court of Appeal and sent the file for retrial in the lower court by another judicial panel. It is about the case of the former magistrate, Lilia Vasilevici, who sued several media outlets and the former prosecutor Ivan Diacov for spreading false information about her.  The judge claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages of MDL 80,000 to 160,000 and demanded denials to be published by the media outlets which wrote about her, making reference to the statements made by Ivan Diacov. Diacov said that Vasilevici had allegedly received tens of thousands of euros to exempt a drug dealer from punishment.
 
Initially, Lilia Vasilevici filed a preliminary application on 9 April 2015, and later on 6 May, she took the case to the court. On 9 June 2016, she filed a modified application with the court and introduced other participants in the trial.
Three years later, on 6 March 2018, the first instance court – the Chisinau Court  (Rascani sector) rejected the application of Lilia Vasilevici on grounds of late filing. The Court of Appeal ruled the same in its decision of 3 October 2018.

Who Vasilevici Sued and What Damages Did She Claim?

In her court application, the magistrate stated that, while surfing the Internet, she noticed news containing ‘false and denigrating information’ about her activity as a judge, spread by the then prosecutor of Chisinau municipality – Ivan Diacov.
 
Various media outlets broadcast Ivan Diacov’s statements that Vasilevici was corrupt and issued unlawful decisions in case of a drug dealer, taking ‘EUR 20-30 thousand or EUR 50-60 thousand’ as bribe in order to release him from detention.
 
Thus, Vasilevici sued Ivan Diacov, Jurnal Trust Media, ‘Reforma Advertising’ Advertising Agency, Moldova Curata, SRL MLD Media, lawyer Fiodor Cojocari, Moldavian Business Channel, Ziarul National, www.point.md, Canal 3, requesting that they refute the information and issue public apologies.
 
The claimant requested that Ivan Diacov and ‘Jurnal Trust Media’ pay pecuniary damages of MDL 80,000 each and the Chisinau Prosecutor’s Office and ‘Jurnal Trust Media’ pay non-pecuniary damages of MDL 80,000 each.  During the case review, she changed her application and requested that Diacov, Jurnal Trust Media and ‘Reform Advertising’ Advertising Agency refute the published information within 15 days of the court decision. She also changed the requested damages. In her new application, Vasilevici requested that defendants Ivan Diacov, ‘Jurnal Trust Media’, ÎCS ‘Jurnal de Chişinău Plus’ SRL and ‘Reform Advertising’ Advertising Agency jointly and severally pay MDL 160,000 as pecuniary damage, and additionally she requested that Ivan Diacov and the media outlets pay MDL 80,000 each as non-pecuniary damage (plus the court costs).
 
What Did the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal Rule?
 
According to the decision of the Court of first instance, the information that Lilia Vasilevici regards as false and defamatory was disseminated in the media between 26 June 2014 and 30 January 2015, and the preliminary application was filed on 9 April 2015 and not within 20 days of the publishing date, as requested by the Law on Freedom of Expression. The applicant's argument that she found out about those materials at a later date was not taken into account due to lack of evidence.
 
Moreover, the court also took into account the report produced by Moldova Curata, which Vasilevici attached to the file. Asked by the reporter why she had not reacted in 2013, when she was accused for the first time of having illicitly released the drug dealer Vitalie Ciornai, or in 2014, when Ivan Diacov accused her in a press conference, Vasilevici said: ‘We, judges, are already used to the fact that after a decision is issued one of the parties could not agree and revolt. It is natural. We do not react. (...) But when I saw that the situation worsened to an extent that I could have been dismissed, I decided to defend myself.’
The Court of Appeal also found that the application was filed in violation of the limitation period and upheld the decision of Chisinau Court.
 
The SCJ Sent the File for Retrial
 
In its turn, on 27 March 2019, the SCJ held that the argument of Lilia Vasilevici was well grounded, as the courts confused the deadline for filing the preliminary application with the deadline for filing the action.
 
The appellate court sent back the file to the Court of Appeal, which had to decide how the preliminary application was solved by the defendants, when Lilia Vasilevici received the answers to the preliminary applications and when she went to the court with the request for summons to defend her freedom of expression, honour, dignity and professional reputation.
Anticoruptie.md previously wrote that the magistrate Lilia Vasilevici had been dismissed by Presidential Decree on 15 May 2015 due to a disciplinary offense. The Superior Council of Magistracy proposed to dismiss the magistrate after Lilia Vasilevici sentenced Vitalie Ciornii, a drug dealer, to five years of prison with conditional suspension.  Subsequently, the higher courts found that suspended penalty may not be applied to those who committed a particularly serious crime, like Ciornii.
Subsequently, Lilia Vasilevici filed an application for admission as a lawyer, but the Licensing Commission rejected her application on 29 November 2016. Vasilevici challenged the Commission's decision in the court, but the Supreme Court of Justice rejected her appeal, by its decision of 6 February 2019.
Lilia Vasilevici is also known as the magistrate who handled the case of former Minister of Defense, Valeriu Pasat, former Director of the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS).