CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 083 02.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1]   Christian Democratic People’s Party v.   Moldova   (no.   2) (application no. 25196/04)   Unjustified ban on a Moldovan opposition party’s demonstration   Unanimously:     Violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights         Principal facts   The applicant, the Christian Democratic People’s Party (“the CDPP”), is a political party in the Republic of Moldova which was represented in Parliament and was in opposition at the time of the events.   In December 2003, the applicant party asked an authorisation to hold a protest demonstration in front of the Government’s building on 25 January 2004, in order to express their views on the functioning of the democratic institutions in Moldova. Their request was denied by the municipal council on the ground that such a demonstration would urge the population to a war of aggression, ethnic hatred and public violence. The courts dismissed the subsequent appeals by the applicant party finding that the ban to hold a demonstration was justified as the leaders of the party had burned in the past a Russian flag and a picture of the Russian President, and had distributed leaflets which contained slogans such as “Down with Voronin’s totalitarian regime” and “Down with Putin’s occupation regime”, which in the domestic courts’ view called for a violent overthrow of the constitutional regime in the country.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 11, the applicant party complained about not being allowed to hold the demonstration as requested.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 2004   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,     Decision of the Court   The Court recalled that political parties played an essential role in the proper functioning of democracy. In view of the public interest in free expression on the functioning of democratic institutions in the country, and the fact that the applicant party had been in opposition at the time of the events, only convincing and compelling reasons could have justified restrictions on their freedom to assemble.   The slogans contained in the party’s leaflets should have been understood as an expression of an opinion, dissatisfaction and protest in respect of an issue of major public interest and not as a call to violence, even if they had been accompanied by the burning of flags and pictures of heads of state.   The potential risk of clashes caused by the demonstrators relied upon by the authorities in justifying their ban had not been sufficient: in particular it was the task of the police to stand between two opposing groups of protestors to ensure public order, and the applicant party had had a record of holding peaceful demonstrations in the past.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 11.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.     [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.