CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53098/17 Anatol MĂTĂSARU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant held a solitary manifestation in front of the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office to protest against alleged acts of corruption. In particular, he installed a toilet sink and pretended to use it by pulling down his pants and sitting on it. He was arrested on the same day and held in detention for seventy-two hours and twenty minutes before being released. Eventually, the criminal charges against him were dropped on the ground that his deeds fell to be examined under the Code of Minor Offences and not under the Criminal Code. The first instance court found the applicant guilty but dismissed the charges against him as time-barred. The applicant’s appeal concerning the merits of the case was not examined by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed his appeal on points of law. The applicant complains that his detention was arbitrary and contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. He also complains that his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention was violated.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention ( Vasiliciuc v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 15944/11, 2 May 2017)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention ( Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova , nos. 69714/16 and 71685/16, 15 January 2019)?