CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2018

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt }   Communicated on 18 December 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29458/15 A.O. FALUN DAFA and others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 18 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first two applicants were two organisations registered in Moldova at the time of the events which practiced Falun Gong, a spiritual practice forbidden in China. The international symbol of the organisations and the symbol registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova was a reversed red swastika. The third and the fourth applicants were the first two applicants’ president and founder. On two different dates a non ‑ governmental organisation initiated court proceedings against the Ministry of Justice and the applicant organisations seeking the ban of their symbol and their dissolution on the ground that they had a swastika as a symbol and that they propagated hatred and social unrest. The applicants opposed arguing that their symbol was not a Nazi swastika and that it had been registered in over eighty countries around the world. They also denied the accusations to their address and relied on Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. In two judgments of 28 January and 11 February 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice finally upheld the actions against the Ministry of Justice and the applicant organisations, banned their symbol and ordered their dissolution. The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention that the banning of their symbol and their dissolution breached their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and their right to freedom of association. They also complained that one of the judges who examined their case at the Supreme Court of Justice had participated in similar previous proceedings against the applicant organisations and that, therefore, he was not impartial. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of thought, conscience or religion, contrary to Article   9 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention? APPENDIX     No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative 1. A.O. FALUN DAFA 2009 Moldovan Chişinău V. Gribincea 2. A.O. QIGONG FALUN GONG MOLDOVA 2011 Moldovan Chişinău V. Gribincea 3. Tatiana CHIRIAC 1970 Moldovan, Romanian Chişinău V. Gribincea 4. Dumitru ROMAN 1965 Moldovan, Romanian Ciorescu V. Gribincea