The Vice-President of the National Audiovisual Council (CNA), Valentin-Alexandru Jucan, considers that the broadcast by the Romanian Television Society (TVR) of the Recorder documentary Justitie Capturata/Captured Justice constitutes an act through which TVR 'fulfils its legal mission.'

'TVR fulfils its legal mission when it airs a documentary of major public interest regarding the functioning of the judiciary. Press freedom and freedom of expression are constitutionally protected, and censorship is prohibited. Questioning, in quasi-criminal terms, the mere fact that TVR broadcasts a journalistic investigation is sharply at odds with the very constitutional protection afforded to TVR and any media entity. Invoking 'incitement against the constitutional order' is not only disproportionate and legally unfounded, but, given the level from which the claim was made, it demonstrates a lack of democratic reflex concerning freedom of expression and a lack of emotional control at a moment of public exposure,' Jucan stated on his Facebook page on Friday.

The CNA vice-president regards as 'not only erroneous but deeply irresponsible and incompatible with the high office held by the person making it' the statement of the President of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Liana Arsenie, who claimed during a press conference that 'the attack of institutionalised politics results precisely from the broadcast on national public television of a highly artistic film, with claims to being a documentary, clearly constituting public incitement against the constitutional order,' referring to TVR's airing of the Recorder investigation.

'When one of the most important actors in Romania's judicial system publicly suggests that a journalistic investigation - broadcast by the public television channel under its legal mandate - constitutes 'incitement against the constitutional order,' we are no longer dealing with a mere personal opinion but with a dangerous distortion of the legal meaning of terms and an attempt to intimidate the press,' Jucan said.

He recalled that the Romanian Television Society, under Law No. 41/1994, is an autonomous public service of national interest, editorially independent, and obliged to ensure pluralism of information, free expression, and accurate public information.

'The law explicitly requires TVR to present 'objectively, impartially, the realities of social, political, and economic life, both domestic and international'; to 'ensure citizens are correctly informed about public affairs'; to promote 'democratic, civic, and moral values'; and to 'advocate for truth and justice.' Moreover, in carrying out these duties, TVR must respect the constitutional order - which precisely means guaranteeing free and transparent debate about the functioning of state institutions, INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY. (It seems someone at the Court of Appeal has not read the law governing TVR.) Therefore, broadcasting the Recorder investigation on the public channel: is NOT an excess, but falls directly within the legal mission to inform the public on 'public affairs'; is NOT in itself an 'attack by institutionalised politics,' but is an exercise in information and transparency regarding a fundamental area of the rule of law,' Jucan argued.

According to him, 'to claim that merely broadcasting a critical investigation by TVR constitutes an 'attack by institutionalised politics' demonstrates a lack of logic: the public television service, like any media entity, serves the public interest, not the protection of the image of public institutions from criticism.'

'Both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and democratic doctrine emphasise the fundamental role of the press as the 'watchdog' of democracy. The ECtHR has consistently stated that the press has an essential mission: to convey information and opinions on matters of general interest, which the public has the right to receive. Journalistic investigations in the field of justice are part of these principles and are legitimate and necessary, provided they are based on facts, documents, and testimonies; they can and should raise uncomfortable questions about judicial independence, potential abuses, or complicity; they benefit from enhanced protection of freedom of expression because they concern the functioning of a branch of the state, not private disputes,' the CNA vice-president noted.

In his view, 'reducing such a journalistic endeavour to a 'highly artistic film, with claims to being a documentary' is, of course, a right to an opinion, but it is equally a rhetorical minimisation of the democratic oversight role of investigative journalism.'

'The situation worsens when the same statement introduces the accusation of 'public incitement against the constitutional order.' The effect is no longer merely polemical but constitutes a potentially penal delegitimisation of journalistic activity. (...) The constitutional order encompasses all principles and institutions established by the Constitution: the rule of law, separation of powers, political pluralism, fundamental rights, and so on. An investigative documentary, however critical or uncomfortable, that exposes mechanisms of 'capturing the judiciary' but does not incite violence, the forcible overthrow of institutions, or the commission of crimes, simply cannot meet the legal elements of incitement under Articles 368 or 397. It is merely an attempt at intimidation, not an opinion,' Jucan emphasised. AGERPRES (RO - writing by: Daniel Popescu; EN - writing by: Simona Iacob)