CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mars 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 73 March 2005 Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova (dec.) - 28793/02 Decision 22.3.2005 [Section IV] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Temporary ban on a political party on account of allegedly illegal demonstrations: admissible   Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Temporary ban on a political party alleged to have interfered with its right to freedom of expression: admissible   The applicant is an opposition political party. As a sign of protest against a government proposal to make the study of Russian compulsory in schools, it informed the Municipal Council of its intention of holding a meeting with its voters in front of the seat of the Government. Although the Municipal Council initially granted authorisation for the meeting, it subsequently suspended it awaiting the official position of Parliament as to which law was to apply to the gathering. In the meantime, the party’s voters held a number of meetings without having complied with formalities. The Ministry of Justice required a halt to the meetings and, after giving the applicant party a warning, imposed a one-month ban on the party for having breached several pieces of legislation. Following an inquiry by the Council of Europe Secretary General and the approaching local elections, the Ministry of Justice lifted the ban and authorised the party to restart its activity. Despite the lifting of the ban, the applicant party challenged the measure in the courts. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the meetings of voters had transformed into demonstrations which required an authorisation. It also found that the demonstrations had blocked public roads and that the participation of minors in them was in breach of several laws. The Supreme Court of Justice found that the sanction imposed on the party had not been disproportionate. In another set of proceedings undertaken by the Government seeking a declaration that the demonstrations were illegal, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the Government and effectively declared the gatherings illegal. Admissible under Articles 10 and 11. The Government’s objection (victim status): During the suspension period the applicant party had risked the freezing of its accounts, the seizure of its assets and the measure had had a “chilling effect” on the party’s freedom to exercise its freedom of expression. Even though the ban had been subsequently lifted, the authorities had not acknowledged an alleged breach of the Convention nor afforded a redress for it. The applicant could thus claim to be a victim.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes