Executive Director of the Center for Independent Journalism, Nadine Gogu, gave an interview for the FES/APE foreign policy newsletter in which we discussed the implementation of the European Commission’s recommendations on media and freedom of expression. The dialogue also touched on the issue of self-regulation in the media and the operationalization of the Press Council, as well as legislation on the protection of the profession of journalism and the physical and moral integrity of those who practice it, against the backdrop of increasing cases of abuse against journalists. We invite you to read the full interview below:

You gave a score of 2.6 out of 5 for freedom of expression in the report on the implementation of the measures required by the EU for the Republic of Moldova. What are the main shortcomings you have identified in this regard on the part of the authorities?

Yes, this is an average score that we calculated. For some aspects, we gave a score of 0 because no measures were taken, and for others we gave a score of 5.

For the other three recommendations, the scores varied. We gave some 3 out of 5 and for others 2 out of 5 points. It is worth mentioning that one of the EU recommendations concerns self-regulation rather than regulation. More specifically, it concerns the Press Council. In this case, it is not the authorities that have to implement more measures, but civil society that has more work to do.

Functionality of the Press Council

What measures do you see that have been taken Monthly newsletter, No.8 (234), August 2025 3 to strengthen self-regulation in the media, particularly for the Press Council, and can this body become fully functional in the area of press self-regulation?

For the organisation of the Press Council, we gave a score of 3 out of 5. This is a slight increase compared to the first monitoring report. However, there is still work to be done because, once registered as a separate institution, the Press Council, as a legal entity, should now be institutionally strengthened. The Press Council should have action development strategies, monitor the content of several activities from its office to encourage the profession to adhere to the Code of Ethics for Journalists in the Republic of Moldova, etc.

Our monitoring report shows that some progress has been made. We are talking about a revised version of the old Code of Ethics, which has been supplemented with certain additions. A series of internal documents were drafted, and the Press Council began working with new experts.

How do you see the progress in terms of transparency of media ownership? What steps have been taken and what remains to be done in this regard?

In this area, we gave a score of 2 out of 5 points in the report for the implementation of requirements to ensure transparency of ownership for print and online media.

Here we note that, within the working group between civil society and Parliament, a draft law on civil society was discussed, but it was only at the discussion stage and nothing happened afterwards. The legislative initiative in this regard has been registered and we are waiting to see what happens this year. In the case of television, it also took a long time for all the important decisions to be made. Moreover, this process began sometime around 2012-2013. At that time, the Independent Journalism Center (CJI) was involved in drafting the amendment to the law.

Currently, we see that the authorities are open to amending the law on media ownership in print and online. We have heard this from them in several public discussions and at various events. The authorities say that yes, these laws need to be amended, but I suspect that there have been many overlapping laws and they have not actually gotten around to dealing with this Press Law.

It was a draft Press Law, which also included provisions on transparency of ownership in print and online media. From what I understand from my colleagues, there was still work to be done on that draft and several areas needed to be addressed. The authorities are now focusing more on regulations relating to the audiovisual media and the Audiovisual Code.

The closure of some television stations: between censorship and security

How do you view the closure of several television stations in the Republic of Moldova from the perspective of national security? Is this closure operation entirely justified, or do you see a certain politicized aspect to this phenomenon? How would you characterize these actions from the perspective of EU practices?

I cannot necessarily say that it is good or bad that various television stations have been closed. This was done based on the violations committed by each of these television stations, if they were monitored, or if certain violations were found.

In fact, in this alternative report, as well as in other analyses and documents we have prepared at the IJC, we have emphasized that this is a matter of procedure, more specifically the method by which these TV licenses were suspended. Because if the licenses had been suspended by the Audiovisual Council, if monitoring had been carried out and there had been data showing problems at those stations, no one would have said that it was a bad thing that they were closed down. This is the role of the Audiovisual Council, namely to monitor and, if violations are found, to intervene.

In this case, it was a different structure, more specifically other institutions that intervened in the issue of closing down certain television stations. This is precisely where we saw a problem and certain constraints. In these cases, we explained why it is not right for this Council for the Promotion of Investment Projects to deal with the suspension of TV licenses.

That is precisely why we said that these legislative provisions must be aligned with European standards in this area. In other European countries, there are no such experiences. In the Republic of Moldova, we were the first to try this. I know that whenever explanations were requested in this regard, the authorities’ responses emphasized the fact that 4 Monthly newsletter, No.8 (234), August 2025 there is a war on the border. Or that there is a hybrid war being waged by the Russian Federation and that attempts are being made to use these television stations as propaganda tools, and unfortunately, many have succeeded in doing so. This propaganda is now being carried out more on the internet and less on TV, because propaganda has migrated to the online sphere.

In such situations, intervention is needed. However, the audiovisual framework must be very clearly defined and harmonized with EU legislation. This must be dealt with by those who have the relevant expertise.

These will also be the recommendations for the next stage, if we hope to reach this recommendation and work on such legislative changes.

The resurgence of violence against journalists

How do you assess the aggression with which the work of journalists is met today by protesters, politicians, or people affiliated with oligarchic interest groups? Is tougher legislation in this regard and more protective measures for journalists perhaps necessary?

This is exactly what we are talking about in recommendation 1—ensuring the protection of journalists. Here we noted that the legislation was amended in July this year. Changes were made to Article 181 of the Criminal Code and Article 61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Criminal penalties have also been tightened for those who obstruct and intimidate the press.

These changes are about to be implemented, and when they come into force, we will see what happens. We have encouraged our fellow journalists to file complaints with the police when they encounter such abuses or attacks, and some of them have done so in recent months. Unfortunately, we had a case where the police did not respond to such a complaint, and the request remained unresolved. Together with our colleagues from the IJC, we are going to challenge that decision and see what happens next.

It is important to amend the current legislation, but we must ensure that it is implemented. We hope that those who commit abuses against the press will be punished and that in the future they will lose their enthusiasm for attacking journalists, knowing what the law says in this regard.

This is precisely what we noted in the report, namely that the authorities are taking more action on such cases. This led to an increase from 2 to 3 in the score in our report.

Abuse by local authorities in Gagauzia

Is there a special situation regarding the functioning of the press in Gagauzia? How do you see the press operating in this region?

It is more problematic. We also noted in recommendation number 1 that in Gagauzia, the authorities continue to intimidate journalists. Unlike other regions where abuses against journalists come mainly from protesters, in the Gagauz autonomous region, the situation is reversed. There are also a number of restrictions and abuses, but especially intimidation by the authorities.

The same is true on the left bank of the Dniester, which was also included in the report. In recent years, there have also been restrictions on journalists there. We are referring here in particular to restrictions on movement. There have been several cases in which teams of journalists who wanted to enter the left bank were detained and subsequently released after the intervention of the authorities.

This is not right. The Transnistrian region is part of the Republic of Moldova, especially since the people there vote. This is all the more worrying because parliamentary elections are coming up and there are plans to open more polling stations in the region. But when it comes to journalists, those in Tiraspol consider themselves a separate entity.

What are the main recommendations that the authorities should take into account when it comes to applying EU legislation with a view to ensuring that the media and freedom of expression in general function normally?

 In general, the authorities need to ensure that the legislative framework is aligned with European standards. Subsequently, once this framework complies with EU requirements, they need to strictly ensure that it is implemented in all areas related to media activity. If this is done, then nothing more should be needed. Good legislation is required, which must then be implemented.

Thank you!