After suspension of the broadcasting licenses of the 12 television stations by the Commission for Exceptional Situations (CES) during the state of emergency, the founding companies of the TV channels filed complaints in court. Almost three years later, only one case was finally closed. Another case has not reached the court, as the subject of the complaint went bankrupt in the meantime. The other proceedings are still pending: some are awaiting final verdicts, others stuck between postponement, appeals and challenges.
According to a recent report of the Independent Journalism Center (IJC) on the mechanisms for suspending or revoking broadcasting licenses of audiovisual media service providers under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova, among the first six television stations suspended by the CES on 16 December 2022, only the RTR Moldova case has been definitively lost by claimants. The lawsuits filed by Primul în Moldova, Accent TV, NTV Moldova, TV6 and Orhei TV are still pending before the Chisinau Court of Appeal, where the hearings have either been postponed or have not been held for unspecified reasons. Since the second round of suspensions on 30 October 2023, the Prime TV and Publika TV case is at the final stage, before the pleadings, as the last hearing is scheduled for 8 December 2025. The Orizont TV case was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 27 October 2025 with a possible appeal to follow, while in the ITV case, the Court of Appeal rejected the claims on 23 January 2025, and a final decision from the Supreme Court of Justice is to be issued on a date not yet determined. Canal 2 and Canal 3 have not challenged the suspension as they entered insolvency proceedings in the meanwhile.
PROGRESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF SUSPENSIONS
The first wave of suspensions took place on 16 December 2022, when the CES issued an order temporarily withdrawing the broadcasting licenses of six TV stations. The decision trigged an immediate reaction from the targeted television stations, and the four founding companies – TV-Comunicații Grup (RTR Moldova), Exclusiv Media (NTV Moldova), Media Resurse (TV6 and Orhei TV) and Telesistem TV (Primul în Moldova and Accent TV) – challenged the suspension before the Chisinau Court of Appeal the very next day.
The IJC report shows that a ‘ping-pong between courts’ followed. The Court of Appeal consolidated the cases and sent them to the Chisinau Court of Appeal, arguing that it was an individual act. However, the Court of Appeal refused to examine them, considering that the CES decision was a normative act. The conflict of jurisdiction reached the Supreme Court of Justice, which, on 29 March 2023, settled the dispute by ruling that the Chisinau Court of Appeal was the competent court to hear the cases.
In the following months, the claimants requested temporary suspension of the CES order until a final decision is issued. However, the request was first rejected by the Chisinau Court, on 13 April 2023, and later by the Court of Appeal, on 26 June 2023. As a result, the suspension of the licenses remained valid throughout the proceedings.
On the merits, the case was examined between April and December 2023, during seven court hearings at the Rascani office of the Chisinau Court. On 28 December 2023, the Court rejected the appeals of the television stations, confirming the legality of the CES decision.
In January 2024, the companies filed appeals to the Chisinau Court of Appeal. Later, only three of them – Telesistem TV (Primul în Moldova and Accent TV), Exclusiv Media (NTV Moldova) and Media Resurse (TV6 and Orhei TV) – continued their proceedings. TV-Comunicații Grup (RTR Moldova) failed to meet the deadline for filing a reasoned appeal, and in June 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice definitively confirmed the rejection of the possibility to challenge the unfavourable decision issued by the court of first instance.
Currently, almost three years after suspension of the licenses, the three remaining cases are still pending before the Chisinau Court of Appeal. From 2024 to 2025, two scheduled hearings were postponed for unspecified reasons, and the last one, in April 2025, did not even take place. Therefore, as of November 2025, the cases of the television stations from the first round of suspensions are still blocked, without a final decision.
PROGRESS OF CASES OF THE SECOND ROUND OF SUSPENSIONS IN COURTS
On 30 October 2023, the CES issued a new order suspending the licenses of six other television stations: Prime TV, Publika TV, Orizont TV, ITV, Canal 2 and Canal 3.
The first to challenge the CES order was the founding company of Prime TV and Publika TV – General Media Group Corp, which addressed the Chisinau Court, Rascani office, in October 2023. The claimants requested suspension of the decision, but both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal rejected the request. Later, the case on the merits progressed slowly: out of the four scheduled hearings, two were postponed at the company’s request, and the last one, scheduled for 8 December 2025, represents the beginning of the final pleadings stage.
In the case of Orizont TV (Archidoc Group), the lawsuit filed on 31 October 2023 moved from one court to another, after both the Chisinau District Court and the Chisinau Court of Appeal initially refused to examine it. The conflict was only resolved by the Supreme Court of Justice, which, on 20 December 2023, ruled that the case should be heard by the Court of Appeal. After multiple postponements and interruptions, the Court of Appeal rejected the company’s appeal on 27 October 2025. It is currently unclear whether an appeal has been or will be filed.
As for ITV (Media Pro Group), the situation was similar: the courts passed their jurisdiction for almost two months, until the Supreme Court of Justice decided that, this time too, the case should be examined by the Chisinau Court of Appeal. On 23 January 2025, the Court of Appeal rejected ITV’s claims, and the company appealed the decision before the Supreme Court of Justice, where a final decision is expected.
Unlike the other broadcasters, Canal 2 and Canal 3 (Telestar Media) have not challenged the CES decision at all, as their parent company has since entered insolvency proceedings. Therefore, the case was closed from the outset, without any legal action.
IDENTICAL CASES, OPPOSITE DECISIONS
The IJC report emphasizes that the first six television stations with suspended licenses, on 16 December, 2022, are represented by four companies that went to court separately, but whose lawsuits were later consolidated in a single case. As for the television stations suspended on 30 October 2023, although the proceedings were initiated on identical grounds, the courts decided to try them separately rather than as a single common case.
In addition, in March 2023, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) considered that the CES orders are individual administrative acts and assigned the examination of the first set of appeals to the Chisinau Court. Nine months later, in December 2023, the same Court decided exactly the opposite: the cases of the second set must be tried by the Court of Appeal. Although it recognized the individual nature of the challenged act, the SCJ relied on a rule from another order of the SEC, from March 2022, which stated that the SEC decisions in the field of planning and coordinating implementation of the measures imposed by the declared state of emergency, regardless of whether they are individual or normative, can be appealed directly before the Court of Appeal. Virtually, in identical cases, the SCJ issued absolutely opposite decisions, which reveals ‘gross inconsistencies’, the author of the document, lawyer Cristina Durnea, concludes.
She also notes that the length of the proceedings effectively reduces the possibility of timely remedies for the affected broadcasters, and calls into question the prompt nature of judicial review in emergency situations. ‘The average duration of the procedures for challenging these exceptional measures can be estimated at 1-2 years to obtain a decision on the merits, with considerable additional extensions, depending on the procedural complexity (e.g. the need to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction, consolidation of cases) and the attitude of the parties (requests for postponement, failure to comply with deadlines, etc.)’, the author explains.
SIGNIFICANT SHORTCOMINGS IN THE REASONING OF THE CES ORDERS
According to the IJC analysis, the content of the CES orders, issued during the state of emergency and which led to suspension of the 12 TV stations, reveals significant shortcomings in their reasoning. The orders invoke two claims: certain persons subject to international sanctions exercised control over the stations concerned, and reports of the Audiovisual Council found a violation of the obligation to provide accurate information.
‘None of the orders provide details of concrete evidence or specific factual arguments to support these claims. The findings resulting from the analysis of the data that could be verified show that only one of the six stations suspended on 30 October 2023 was sanctioned by the AC for violating the obligation to provide accurate information, contrary to the allegations in the CES order’, the author of the report explains.
After suspension of the licenses, the activity of these broadcasters evolved differently. Some television stations continued to operate online, such as TV6 and Canal 5. Other stations, such as Publika TV, remained active on their news website and, for a period, on social networks. In some cases, the content of the suspended television stations was retransmitted by other broadcasters – for example, GRT aired the programs of the Primul în Moldova channel. Other outlets, such as Orhei TV and Accent TV, completely ceased their operations after their licenses were suspended.