The Court of Appeals maintained a decision finding journalist Julieta Savițchi and the Crime Moldova portal guilty of defamation. The decision was handed down on February 10, 2026, and upheld the ruling of the Chișinău District Court of September 23, 2024, in a case defending honor, dignity, and professional reputation brought by prosecutor Iuri Lealin.
The dispute began after the publication, on September 17, 2023, of an article entitled “The prosecutor who deceived the Pre-Vetting Commission.” The text contained statements about the claimant and was accompanied by a photograph of the prosecutor. The case file states that Lealin promoted the Pre-Vetting Commission’s assessment (citing a decision of the Commission dated June 9, 2023), and subsequently followed the preliminary procedure with a request dated September 25, 2023.
Specifically, the decision of the court of first instance shows that he considered particularly damaging the idea that he had passed the pre-vetting not on merit, but because he had “tricked” the Commission and, above all, that he had presented “false or incomplete information” in order to obtain a favorable result. In his view, such statements directly affect his honor, dignity, and professional reputation because they target the credibility of a prosecutor, which is why he sought a retraction and moral damages in court.
In his lawsuit, Lealin requested, among other things, the publication of a retraction, the award of 100,000 lei in moral damages, and the recovery of court costs.
The Chișinău District Court only partially upheld the lawsuit. The court ordered Julieta Savițchi and the Crime Moldova portal to publish a retraction entitled “Retraction” regarding the statement that the plaintiff had passed the pre-vetting by presenting “false or incomplete information,” and that the retraction be maintained on the website for at least six months. At the same time, the court ordered the same defendants to jointly pay 100 lei to cover the state fee. The rest of the claims were dismissed as unfounded, including the request for 100,000 lei in moral damages.
In its reasoning, the court of first instance explained that it had analyzed the separation between statements of fact and value judgments. The court considered that the accusation that the prosecutor had passed the evaluation by presenting “false or incomplete information” was factual in nature and was not supported by relevant and conclusive evidence, which is why it ordered the retraction strictly on this point. On the other hand, the expression “deceived the Pre-Vetting Commission” was treated as a value judgment, and on this point the claim was dismissed.
The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice and is currently under review.