I. On 26 February 2016, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council adopted Decision no. 4/21, which warned the public ICS "Digital Pro" LLC, founder of TV station "Pro TV Chisinau", for transmission of program services in violation of section 3.1. Lit. a) AC series of broadcasting license no. 000001 of 27.11.2009 (noncompliance with art. 11, letter b) of Decision No CCA. 99 of 19.07.2012 on the rights and protection of children in audiovisual programs; art. 4 para. (1) a) para. (2) d) para. (3) b) of Law no. 30 of 07.03.2013 on the protection of children against the negative impact of information) in accordance with art. 38 para. (2) b) and paragraph. (3) a) of the Broadcasting Code.
On 25 March 2016 the BCC address was received prior request EFC "Digital Pro" LTD, which states that "no decision CCA. 4/21 of February 26, 2016 is unjustified or unlawful, and therefore to be revoked. "
In the preliminary application, the petitioner argues that "CCA did not indicate what is the normative basis justifying that the image of a house like many others in any city in Moldova is personal data. At the same time, CCA, when he said that the words "blame" was used in a legal sense, but socially as stated EFC "Pro Digital" SRL, forgot to refer to the terminology used by prosecutor Sergiu Pascaneanu, namely the notion the "suspect" is not found in the criminal procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova ".
The petitioner also claims that "The news sent the authors the public, audience purpose of a criminal rules, be aware that it has not been exposed in legal terms, their criminal laws, but, on the contrary, this rule has been transmitted so as to be explained. " Examining
prior request EFC "Digital Pro" LTD, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council finds its groundlessness and neargumentarea request invoked. However, it is established that Decision. 4/21 of 26 February 2016 was adopted in strict compliance with the Broadcasting Code, the BCC Decision no. 99 of 19.07.2012 on the rights and protection of children in audiovisual programs and the Law. 30 of 03.07.2013 on the protection of children against the negative impact of information. As a result of repeated examination of the monitoring report, grounds for revocation were not submitted.
II. On 26 February 2016, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council adopted Decision no. 4/26, which imposed a fine of 3,600 lei "Selectcanal TV" LLC, founder of TV station "N4", for transmission of program services in violation of broadcasting license Series AA no. 082 882 of 18.05.2011 (exemptions in section 3.1. A) and n) of the broadcasting license conditions, art. 25 para. (1) l) and 37 par. (2) of the Broadcasting Code, failure CCA decision no. 44/222 of 29 December 2015 and No. 3/18 of 11 February 2016), pursuant to art. 38 para. (2) b) and paragraph. (3) b) of the Broadcasting Code.
On 29 March 2016 the CCA received preliminary request address "Selectcanal TV" SRL, which claims that disagrees with decision no. 4/26 of 26 February 2016 and calls for its cancellation as illegal.
In the appeal, the petitioner alleges: "The facts described by the CCA, referring to the complaint lodged by SMG Limited Movie" not true. Presentation of contracts / agreements on non-existent action is not and was not possible. Moreover, as mentioned in previous preliminary application, according to Art. 55 (1) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, "any natural or legal person fails on turning an object of copyright, neighboring rights or other rights protected under this Law has the right to initiate actions competent court or other authority to refer for measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this chapter. "
The petitioner further states that: "Based on art. 38 of the Broadcasting Code, examining issues of violations copyright and related rights are not in the competence of the CCA. Moreover, according to Art. 40 of the Code, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council, nor has such powers ".
Examining
prior request "Selectcanal TV" SRL, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council finds its groundlessness and neargumentarea request invoked. Thus, it is established that the contested decision was adopted following the finding that ignoring the request CCA and non-enforcement of the decision, but not for violation of legislation on copyright and related rights.
However, invoking the reason that the Broadcasting Coordinating Council breached the principle of graduality the sanction does not take as art. 38 para. (3) of the Broadcasting Code expressly provides that: penalties provided in Art. 38 para. (1) are applied gradually, as follows: 1) public warning, 2) fine, 3) withdrawal of the right to broadcast advertisements for a certain period, 4) suspension of the broadcasting license for a certain period and 5) withdrawal broadcasting license. Accordingly, the first offense applies to public warning and the second time - fine.
It is noted that the above-mentioned decisions were not documented violations and procedural competence of the CCA or not there are grounds for their annulment.
III. On April 4, 2016, address CCA have received two requests: from the Public Association "Office Republican Copyright" (ORDA) and the NGO National Association Copyright (ANCO), which was asked:
1. - "Perform an inspection at the dealer LLC" Radivaxplus-TV "in order to establish lack of license from organizations collecting ORDA and the ANCO"
- "Cancellation of the authorization forwarding services distributor LLC" Radivaxplus-TV ".
2. - "Perform an inspection at the dealer LLC" Tele-Crio "in order to establish lack of license from organizations collecting ORDA and ANCO for exploitation of works";
- "Cancellation of the authorization forwarding services distributor LLC" Tele-Crio ".
In its requests, the petitioners stated that: "The broadcaster is obliged to conclude a contract copyright for works used in their program services, and distributor (cable operator) has the obligation to contract with the copyright holder to relay and the lack of conclusion of these contracts shows that there was a violation and illegal exploitation of copyright and related rights ".
Petitioners submit that: "In the absence of express consent by the author under contract, as stipulated by the law, it appears certain that infringement by users of copyright of authors / performers represented by ORDA and the ANCO the result of illegal exploitation of works that belong to the past. Given the fact that LLC "Radivaxplus-TV" and LLC "Tele-Crio" over a long period of time, from 2012 until the present, evading the legal payment of royalties for use of works without contract, agreement, consent from ANCO and ORDA or authors / performers, plus it demonstrated behavior in bad faith, we call as the broadcasting Coordinating Council, as the organ of the resort segment issuance of licenses / authorizations / transmitting relay users of works of copyright / related to intervene by levers legal granted by the legislature and cancel licenses / authorizations SRL Radivaxplus-TV and LLC "Tele-Crio" to conclude contracts binding ANCO and ORDA and payment of royalties / related ".
Examining applications organizations collecting "ORDA" and "ANCO" Audiovisual Coordinating Council finds their groundlessness and neargumentarea requests invoked. According to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. 139 of 02.07.2010:

Art. 55 (1) Any natural or legal person fails on turning an object of copyright, neighboring rights or other rights protected under this Law shall be entitled to take action in a competent court or refer the matter to another authority for application measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this chapter. Art. 63 (1) legal proceedings initiated in relation to infringement of copyright, related rights or other rights protected by this law, persons specified in art. 55 para. (2) may request the courts or other competent authorities, as appropriate, recognizing their rights and their infringement by establishing damages compensation.
It should be noted that the Law on copyright and related rights does not refer to the Broadcasting Coordinating Council as belonging to the category of competent bodies with responsibilities in respect of the recognition of copyright and / or related rights, their infringement and damages by establishing damages.
So in Republic of Moldova, in order to counter violations of copyright and related rights is, the Law on Copyright and Related Rights in 2010. Namely, this law expressly establishes compensation and remedies that may be awarded and used case violation of copyright and related rights. By applications, "ORDA" and "ANCO" asked the CCA to cancel permits relay for breach of copyright and related rights, but CCA is a public authority that does not have jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Code for imposing sanctions breach of copyright and related rights. At the same time, it underlines that according to the powers expressly mentioned in art. 40 of the Broadcasting Code, the BCC is charged with the defense of copyright and related rights or finding of violation of these rights even if they relate to the dissemination of audiovisual works.
Moreover, art. 38 of the Broadcasting Code, the offenses are set out what constitutes audiovisual liable to be sanctioned by the CCA can not be found "infringement of copyright and related rights". We believe that the petitioners misinterprets and unjustified Broadcasting Code.
In the same vein, art. 96 "Violation of copyright and related rights" of the Contravention Code expressly provides that it is liable for breach of copyright and related rights, setting persons and bodies who have the right to examine the causes of these offenses and to impose sanctions.
It is also noted that service distributors retransmitting a program service presents the CCA binding contract giving the right to retransmission its program service concluded with the owner or representative of the Republic of Moldova.
Concluded the facts stated above, it appears unable to satisfy requests admission and "ROC" and "ANCO" these unfounded.
Public Association "Republican Copyright Office" and "Public Association National Association CopyRight" are recommended, if it is deemed violated its rights to initiate action in the competent court, as required by art. 55 para. (1) of Law no. 139 on copyright and related rights "any natural or legal person fails on turning an object of copyright, neighboring rights or other rights protected under this Law shall be entitled to take action in the competent court or refer the matter to another authority for the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this chapter. "

Following the examination of applications prior public under the Broadcasting Code no. 260 of 27.07.2006, the Law no. 793 of 10.02.2000 and the Statute of CCA, approved by Decision no. 433 dated 28.12.2006 of the Parliament of Moldova, the Coordinating Council of Audiovisual DECIDED
:


1. He rejects as unfounded the request prior to ICS "Digital Pro" LTD CCA No decision on cancellation. 4/21 of 26 February 2016 (the PRO - (6) UNANIMOUSLY - D. hammer, Iu. COLESNIC, O. Gututui C. bribery, M. and D. ONCEANU-Hadirca VICOL).

2. It rejects as unfounded prior request "Selectcanal TV" SRL on the annulment of Decision No. CCA. 4/26 of 26 February 2016 (the PRO - (6) UNANIMOUSLY - D. hammer, Iu. COLESNIC, O. Gututui C. bribery, M. and D. ONCEANU-Hadirca VICOL).
March. He rejects as unfounded the request of collective management organizations "ORDA" and "ANCO" annulling authorization forwarding services distributor "Radivaxplus-TV" LLC (PRO - (6) UNANIMOUSLY - D. hammer, Iu. COLESNIC, O. Gututui C. bribery, M. and D. ONCEANU-Hadirca VICOL).
4. He rejects as unfounded the request of collective management organizations "ORDA" and "ANCO" annulling authorization forwarding services distributor "Tele-Crio" LLC (PRO - (6) UNANIMOUSLY - D. hammer, Iu. COLESNIC, O. Gututui C. bribery, M. and D. ONCEANU-Hadirca VICOL).
May. Control over execution of this Decision exercised Legal and regulations.
June. This Decision will be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova and the BCC website.
COORDINATING COUNCIL PRESIDENT


BROADCASTING Dinu HAMMER