CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 avril 2017

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 26 April 2017   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 69714/16 and 71685/16 Anatol MĂTĂSARU against the Republic of Moldova and Anatol MĂTĂSARU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 19 November 2016 and 18 November 2016 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicant’s peaceful protest in front of the General Prosecutor’s Office and his being imposed a criminal sanction for it. The applicant installed in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office two large wooden sculptures of a penis and a vulva with pictures of the Speaker of Parliament and several high-ranking prosecutors on them. In his words, he was protesting in this way against corruption and political influence exercised on the Prosecutor’s Office. As a result, he was charged with the offence of hooliganism and imposed a suspended sentence of two year’s imprisonment. The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The subject matter of the case is whether its facts disclose a problem similar to the one in Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC] (no.   33348/96, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI), on account of the severity of the sanction imposed on the applicant. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI)?