Ro
En
Рy
During the debates organized at the Parliament on October 26, MP Virgiliu Pâslariuc from the Action and Solidarity Party (PAS), who is also the deputy chair of the Commission for Culture, Education, Research, Youth, Sport and the Media, said that the parliamentary majority is doing nothing but return the public institution under public control. He noted that one of the Parliament’s functions is to control the application of law in specialized areas. “What happened after 2018-2019, when the public television came under the control of the Broadcasting Council [BC], did not work. The BC is essentially an arbitrator. It should regulate, and not administer. The administration task has been too difficult for the BC,” Virgiliu Pâslariuc explained.
According to him, the MPs’ proposal, according to which the rejection of the BC’s annual activity report should lead to the dismissal of the BC members, is an international practice, which can be applied in Moldova, too. “The Code of Audiovisual Media Services provided for very many duties, very many incentives to the regulator, but did not provide for a sanctioning mechanism. It hasn’t worked for us,” Virgiliu Pâslariuc added.
Cristina Durnea, the lawyer of the Independent Journalism Center, mentioned the standards set out in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the functioning of the media, which “determine the need to distance political forces from the process of appointing the management of the public broadcasting institutions and of the body that represents public interest in the audiovisual field.”
At the same time, she claims that more clarity is needed regarding the mechanism for dismissing the members of those institutions. “If we still are to establish this parliamentary control, it is necessary to regulate very clearly, at legislative level, all relevant procedures, from the initiation of the administrative dismissal procedure to the issuance of the decision on dismissal. (…) These reasons leave room for arbitrariness on the part of the authority that applies this reason. Why? Because the reason for acknowledging the improper performance or non-performance of duties should be formulated in a way that indicates all facts that are reason for these subjects to be sanctioned by dismissal. In this situation, this reason can be interpreted in a broad and non-limiting manner,” Cristina Durnea said.
The lawyer believes that the phrase “defective activity” is a bigger problem, as “it is not defined in the law and is not common to general standards of legislative technique.” The head of the parliamentary commission for the media, Liliana Nicolaescu-Onofrei, said that this phrase actually means “activity that does not comply with the established requirements.”
On the other hand, the executive director of the Association of Independent Press (AIP), Petru Macovei, spoke in support of the initiative, saying that the situation did not change for the better after 2018, when the new code entered into force. “I my opinion, this draft law might solve certain problems in a short term. I see no problem in returning Teleradio-Moldova under parliamentary control,” he said.
The AIP representative believes that the company’s Supervisory Board should include more representatives of the civil society that monitors the activity of the public television, four members instead of two, as the draft law provides.
MEDIA EXPERT: ACCOUNTABILITY EQUIVALENT TO EXCESSIVE CONTOL
Eugeniu Rîbca, co-author of the Code of Audiovisual Media Services, noted that the idea of providing irremovability for the Broadcasting Council came from discussions with European experts. “What do I see in this draft law? I see swinging from one extreme to another one. So far, we had irremovability equivalent with accountability. What do I mean? Look at the BC meetings broadcast on Privesc.eu. Very often, I see this: They say, ‘I won’t vote,’ but don’t say why. The BC has become a feud in some cases – ‘I do what I want because I am irremovable.’ There should be parliamentary control, but what it should be like is the thing we, Moldova in general and lawyers, should figure out ourselves as time goes by, so we don’t swing from one extreme to another one. Now, we are going along the idea of ensuring accountability that is equivalent to excessive control,” Eugeniu Rîbca said.
He also believes that the problem should be solved by ensuring personal accountability of the members of the Broadcasting Council and TRM’s Supervisory Board.
The only representative of TRM’s Supervisory Board who spoke during the debates, Alexandr Verșinin, suggested that the law should allow former members of the Supervisory Board to run as candidates. “The specialized commission, following a competition, will decide – you go on if you are capable, and if you are uncapable, you will go learn, work, develop skills, and you might have a chance at the following competition,” he commented.
Liliana Nicolăescu-Onofrei concluded that the proposals voiced during the discussion will be analyzed by MPs.
