CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   80 14.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S PARTY v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova   (application no. 28793/02).   The Court held by six votes to one that:   there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant party 4,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CDPP), is a Parliamentary political party from the Republic of Moldova, in opposition at the time of the events.   Towards the end of 2001 a Government announcement, that it intended to make the study of the Russian language compulsory in schools, generated a great deal of heated public debate.   Against that background, the Parliamentary faction of the CDPP informed the Chişinău Municipal Council of its intention to hold a meeting on the topic with its voters. The meeting was to be held in the Square of the Great National Assembly in front of the seat of the Government. Relying on the Law on the Status of Deputies, the CDPP did not obtain prior authorisation for the meeting.   The M unicipal C ouncil municipal council , however, classified the gathering as a demonstration within the meaning of the Assemblies Law and authorised the CDPP to hold it in a different location. The CDPP nevertheless held the meeting in front of the Government headquarters, and continued to hold regular gatherings there in January, informing the council in advance but not seeking its authorisation.     On 18 January 2002 the Ministry of Justice, imposed a one month ban on the CDPP’s activities for its organisation of unauthorised demonstrations. In its decision it made particular reference to the participation of minors at the demonstrations, in breach of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and other legislation, and the use of slogans which could have been interpreted as a call to public violence and an encroachment on the legal and constitutional order.   On 24 January 2002   the CDPP challenged the decision of the Ministry of Justice in courts; however, their action was dismissed by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 17 May 2002 . In the meantime, f ollowing the inquiry made by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the Convention, and having regard to the approaching local elections, the Ministry of Justice lifted the ban and the CDPP was authorised to restart its activity   without however annulling its previous decision   of 18 January 2002 .   In the meantime, on 8 February 2002 ,   f ollowing an   inquiry made by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the Convention, and having regard to the approaching local elections, the Ministry of Justice lifted the ban and the CDPP was authorised to restart its activity   without however annulling its previous decision   of 18 January 2002 . On 25 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice , in response to a request made by the Government, declared the gatherings illegal.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 July 2002 and declared admissible on 22 March 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the temporary ban violated its right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association as guaranteed by Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). It also alleged a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Decision of the Court   The Court considered the three grounds relied upon by the domestic authorities: that the CDDP had not obtained an authorisation for its gatherings in accordance with the Assemblies Law, that children were present at its gatherings, and that some statements made at the gatherings amounted to calls to public violence, and found that they were not relevant and sufficient reasons to justify imposing the ban on the CDPP’s activities.   The Court stressed that only very serious breaches such as those which endanger political pluralism or fundamental democratic principles could justify a ban on the activities of a political party. Since the CDPP’s gatherings were entirely peaceful, there were no calls to violent overthrow of the Government or any other encroachment on the principles of pluralism and democracy, it could not reasonably be said that the measure applied to it was proportionate to the aim pursued and that it met a pressing social need. It further remarked that despite its temporary nature, the ban could reasonably be said to have had a “chilling effect” on the Party’s freedom to exercise its freedom of expression and to pursue its political goals, the more so, since it was adopted on the eve of the local elections.   The Court noted with satisfaction the readiness of the Moldovan authorities to lift the ban following the Secretary General’s enquiry. Even so, the Court found that the temporary ban on the CDPP’s activities had not been necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.   The Court considered that it was unnecessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 10 as the complaint related to the same matters as those considered under Article 11.   Judge Pavlovschi expressed a partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion and Judge Borrego Borrego expressed a dissenting opinion, which are annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.