CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 29 March 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37326/13 UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED and others against Malta lodged on 28 May 2013     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   2. Was the interference suffered by the applicants, prescribed by a law having the requisite quality, and was the relevant procedure followed during reconsideration? In particular, did the law applicable at the time allow for a total ban, and could a reconsideration be carried out by one person alone?   3. Was the interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and necessary in a democratic society in terms of Article   10   § 2?   4. The Government are requested to provide information and statistics about decisions by the Board for Film and Stage Classification concerning, in particular, total bans on stage productions, and whether any ban was precipitated by a complaint lodged with the Board.