I. august 12, 2016, the audiovisual Coordinating Council has adopted decision No. 21/117, which applied to public warning "Inet Techno". Project activity without a permit issued by the retransmission CCA and without holding contracts for retransmission agreements with owners of television stations included in the tender, in accordance with the provisions of art. 38 para. (2) (a). ) and (e)), para. (3) (a). the broadcasting code).
On September 29, 2016, the prior request of the addressee "Inet Techno". Regions where he claimed that he did not agree with the above mentioned decision.
In a prior request that is invoked: "the contract of mandate no. 01/08/16 from 1 august 2016, "TV Box" authorized "Inet Techno" Ltd. to carry out acts of service marketing multimedia over the internet in the name of "Box" TV "(specifying in the contract with the end user of the service given to the Supplier-TV Box SRL), legal documents concluded by" Techno "Ltd. for Inet fulfilment are signed only as" representative.
The petitioner notes that "TV" features Boxing relay authorization issued by the audiovisual Coordinating Council, and the "Techno" Inet LLC, as trustee, has complied with the provisions of the agreement, by signing the contract with the marketing mandate of the multimedia service to TV stations as annexed to the contract, given the views of the judiciary mentioned we find that is flawed appreciation of that practice unlawful retransmission ".
Prior to examining the request of SC "Inet Techno" Ltd., co-ordinating Council of audiovisual unreliability and finds its neargumentarea request invoked. Thus, it is established that the contested decision was adopted in strict conformity with the provisions of the broadcasting code, the material and the evidence accumulated, and the grounds for revocation were not submitted. Furthermore, the repeated scrutiny by the audiovisual Coordinating Council, gathering additional evidence confirms that SC is "Inet Techno". Project forward a number of TV channels by subscribing, without holding the licence issued by the relay for CCA and retransmission agreements with owners of television stations included in the tender.
II. On 16 September 2016, the audiovisual Coordinating Council has adopted decision No. 24/140, which applied to public warning "Metical", the founder of the Studio "Metical-TV". Orhei, according to art. 38 para. (2) (a). a), e), para. (3) (a). the broadcasting code), for derogations from article. 28 para. (1) of the broadcasting code, art. 36 para. (2) of the regulation on the procedure and conditions for issuing licences and permits relay and failure to comply with point 1.4, 2.2, 3.1, lit. (b) the retransmission consent series AB nr. 000161 from 23.05.2012, released "Metical".
On the 18th October 2016, the prior request of the addressee "Metical". Orhei, where he claimed that he did not agree with points 3 and 3.1 of the above mentioned decision, it considers illegal, groundless and needed to be undone.
In a prior request that is invoked: "SC" Metical "Ltd does not provide and never provided television services in Ivancea, Trebujeni village and much more has not retranslat in these localities the tv station" Россия "24. In Ivancea and Trebujeni of Orhei, SC "Metical" Ltd. provides internet service only, and does not "television services.
The petitioner notes that "SC" Metical "SRL cannot be held responsible for possible retransmission of television stations in these settlements by other operators or other methods of military-oriented planes".
Prior to examining the request of SC "Metical", the CCA notes disprove the alleged request and neargumentarea. Thus, it is established that the contested decision was adopted in strict conformity with the provisions of the broadcasting code, the material and the evidence accumulated, and the grounds for its cancellation were not presented. Following the control conducted by the CCA, in the villages of Trebujeni and Snr, Orhei, was found unlawful retransmission of TV stations, without holding the licence in respect of such localities relay by "Metical", working in the or. Orhei based relay Authorization series AB nr. 000121 from 15.10.2010. Moreover, at the time of the inspection, the undertaking referred to retransmitea 154 of TV channels, including tv channel "Россия" from Russia.
III. On September 16, 2016, the audiovisual Coordinating Council has adopted decision No. 24/134 by which it applied public warning "SG Media LLC, the founder of M1 channel" Moldavian Business Channel "for failure to submit the Declaration concerning the electoral campaign in the presidential election of October 30, 2016, according to art. 38 para. (1) and (2), subparagraph (c). b) of broadcasting code.
On the 21st October 2016, the prior request of the addressee "SG M1 Media Ltd. No. 883-01, where he claimed that he did not agree with the sanction and requests the revocation Decision AMOUNTED to ABOUT No. 24/136 of 16 September 2016 in part aimed at applying the sanction the trading company "SG M1 Media LLC (founder of Moldavian Lent Business Channel).
In a prior request that is invoked: "Lawyer" Moldavian television Business Channel "returned from vacation until September 12. Actually, I don't have time to run all the workload that was accumulated during the period of absence ".

The petitioner notes that: "all this took place with the aim of intimidation, apparently lawful but without any reasonable grounds, the independent tv station MBC TV" ", as in a final to be applied to the most drastic sanction-withdraw. Also put in doubt the impartiality of the members of the BCC regarding item Moldovian Business Channel "and, especially, try my image in defiance as the director of it, being a tough opponent to address the current Government. It apparently concludes that through indirect methods are trying to shut some constructive criticism to address power and there has been a reckoning, commanded, toward our television station ".
After examining the application of the prior "SG M1 Media LLC, the CCA notes disprove the alleged request and neargumentarea. At the same time, it is established that the decision No. 24/136 of 16 September 2016 was adopted in strict conformity with the provisions of the broadcasting code, and the grounds for revocation were not submitted.
IV. On September 13, 2016, the audiovisual Coordinating Council has adopted decision No. 23/130, which applied to public warning "SG M1 MEDIA S.R.L., founder of" Moldavian television Business Channel ", for derogations from the provisions of art. 37 para. (2) of the broadcasting code and item 3.1 lit. k) of the AC series emission Licence nr. 000008 from 20.12.2013, in accordance with article 5. 38 para. (1) (a). the broadcasting code).
On the 21st October 2016, the prior request of the addressee "SG M1 Media Ltd. No. 882-01, where he claimed that he did not agree with the sanction and requests the revocation Decision AMOUNTED to ABOUT No. 23/130 of 13 September 2016 in part related to the application of the penalty "public Warning" trading company "SG M1 Media LLC (founder of Moldavian Lent Business Channel).
In a prior request that is invoked: "Lawyer television station, Mr. Bailey, he was on leave until September 12. Mr. deals directly all relations of MBC TV towards public authorities, including the Bcc and check, and, according to the post card, these obligations belong exclusively, for which it is responsible in accordance with labour legislation. Once returned from leave, the same day I sent the requested information. Also mention that the tv station "Moldavian Business Channel is a private one and works independently from its own resources and can not afford hiring several lawyers".
The petitioner notes that: "at the same time, presenting an analysis reveals that many of the country's television stations violating consistently through presentation of audiovisual law information denigrating their unaffiliated persons address, promotes a policy obviously biased towards certain facts, and acts totally backwards towards the unanimously recognized international principles, such as that of equality, legality, presumption of innocence".
After examining the application of the prior "SG M1 Media LLC, the CCA notes disprove the alleged request and neargumentarea. At the same time, it is established that the decision No. 23/130 of 13 September 2016 was adopted in strict conformity with the provisions of the broadcasting code, and the grounds for revocation were not submitted.
As a result of public examination of requests, pursuant to the provisions of the broadcasting code no. 260 from supervised administrative courts, law No. 10.02.2000 793 and status from the CCA, approved by Decision No. 433 from 28.12.2006 the Moldovan audiovisual Coordinating Council DECIDES: 1. To reject the request prior to S.C. "Inet Techno" Ltd. concerning the cancellation of points 1 and 4 of the CCA Decision nr. 21/117 of 12 august 2016, as unfounded (PRO-(8)-UNANIMOUS HAMMER, o. BARBALATA, a. CASTILLO, born DAMASCUS, o. GUŢUŢUI, c. MÎŢU, m. OBI-HADIRCA, and d. VALENTINI).
2. To reject the request prior to SC "Metical" on canceling item 3 and 3.1 of the CCA Decision nr. 24/140 of 16 September 2016, as unfounded (PRO-(7)-HAMMER, o. BARBALATA, a. CASTILLO, born DAMASCUS, o. GUŢUŢUI, c. MÎŢU and d. VALENTINI).
3. To reject the request prior to "SG M1 Media LLC regarding the annulment of paragraph 4 of the decision of BCC nr. 24/136 of 16 September 2016, as unfounded (PRO-(7)-HAMMER, o. BARBALATA, a. CASTILLO, born DAMASCUS, o. GUŢUŢUI, c. MÎŢU and d. VALENTINI).
4. To reject the request prior to "SG M1 Media LLC regarding cancellation of point 3 of the CCA Decision nr. 23/130 of 13 September 2016, as unfounded (PRO-(7)-HAMMER, o. BARBALATA, a. CASTILLO, born DAMASCUS, o. GUŢUŢUI, c. MÎŢU and d. VALENTINI).
5. control of the execution of this decision, it shall exercise Direction and legal regulations.
6. This decision shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova and in the web page of the CA.

CCA BOARD CHAIRMAN Dinu CIOCAN