The national association “Copyright” demands that the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) should send back the case against the mobile phone carrier Moldcell to the Chisinau City Appeals Court so that the lost proofs are restored.
In a news conference at IPN, the jurist who represents the interests of “Copyright” Marcel Oțel said that a number of proofs, notes and recordings of hearings disappeared from the case. “The Supreme Court of Justice cannot examine the case in its current state, with lost evidence. But the proofs can be reconstructed as “Copyright” has the documents in the original and these were presented in court by Moldcell itself and the company is not against presenting them again,” stated Marcel Oțel.
“Copyright” accuses the mobile phone carrier of not paying the appropriate remuneration to authors and other copyright holders in Moldova and abroad. The association won the case in the common law court and in the Appeals Court. The case reached the Supreme Court of Justice without a number of proofs. “We were very surprised to find out that the previous evidence that showed what sum wad to be paid by Moldcell to “Copyright” disappeared and other data that show the sum is 700 times lower appeared instead. This runs counter to the rulings of the first two courts of law,” said the president of “Copuyright” Liviu Știrbu.
The association asked to reconstruct the lost evidence. Under the law, this is to be done by the Chisinau City Appeals Court. The Court requested the SCJ to remit the case for examining the application to reconstruct the documents. “Copyright” submitted a similar application to the SCJ. However, on March 2 the SCJ responded that the application will be examined together with the admissibility of the appeals declared by the lawyer of Moldcell and by “Copyright”.
The jurist of “Copyright” noted that by not sending the case to the Chisinau City Appeals Court for reconstructing the evidence, the right to a fair trial is being violated as the case will be examined without the association “Copyright” benefitting from the right to win this case by the classification of the appeal filed by Moldcell as inadmissible.
According to Marcel Oțel, even if the SCJ can declare the appeal filed by Moldcell inadmissible, for “Copyright” it is important that this is done based on all the proofs that existed in the case and that can be reconstructed by the Chisinau City Appeals Court. Moreover, the Appeals Court already initiated the procedure for reconstructing the lost evidence. “Therefore, the case cannot be sent by the SCJ back for retrial as the Appeals Court should first complete the evidence reconstruction procedure. Even the representatives of Moldcell are ready to contribute to reconstructing the evidence,” stated Marcel Oțel.
“Copyright” warns the SCJ that any illegal attempt to influence the end result of the legal and correct trial will be penalized publicly by the association that represents over 500 national artists, authors and singers. The association will make use of all the national and international legal instruments, including the ECHR, so as to safeguard the rights and interests of national artists, authors and singers.
