CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 septembre 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 652 14.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (Nos. 5 and 6) (application nos. 6991/08 and 15084/08)   Police’s suppression of three NGO protests and arrest of demonstrators disproportionate     Unanimously   Violation of Article 11 ( freedom of assembly and association ) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are Hyde Park, formerly a registered non-governmental organisation lobbying for freedom of expression and the right to free assembly, and four of its members, Ghenadie Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Oleg Brega and Anatol Hristea-Stan, Moldovan nationals who were born in 1975, 1988, 1973 and 1953, respectively, and live in Chişinău and Pepini (Moldova). Hyde Park’s members decided to discontinue registration of the organisation in 2007 on grounds of alleged State intimidation, including the authorities’ refusal to register amendments to Hyde Park’s articles of association, repeated freezing of its bank account, arbitrary arrest of its members and attempts to shut down its newspaper.   The case concerned the police’s suppression of – as well as the arrests made during – three demonstrations held by the applicants in August and September 2007 in Chişinău in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office.   On 30 August 2007 the applicants started to demonstrate – with the authorisation of the Municipal Council – about the authorities’ alleged harassment of Hyde Park. The police immediately intervened and, arguing that the protest’s authorisation was not valid, arrested the applicants and took them to a police station for questioning. They were released a few hours later.   In protest of the suppression of that first demonstration, the applicants staged another demonstration on 4 September 2007, this time not authorised by the Municipality. Again arrested and taken to a police station, they were released after five hours. They were subsequently found guilty of organising an unauthorised demonstration and fined 800 Moldovan lei (approximately 48 euros (EUR)).   The applicants started their third demonstration – authorised a few days earlier – on 10   September 2007. They were once again immediately arrested, this time on the ground that the authorisation did not contain the names of all the persons involved in the protest. Released after questioning, they had administrative proceedings brought against them, which were subsequently discontinued.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the police’s suppression of – as well as the arrests made during – their three demonstrations. They also complained about the courts’ failure, in the ensuing proceedings against the applicants concerning the demonstrations, to give sufficient reasons for their decisions, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 February 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the 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 also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 11 As concerned the first and third demonstrations, which were given prior authorisation, the Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that it had been necessary to arrest the applicants in order to check their authorisation or their identities. Indeed, a video submitted by the applicants of the third demonstration clearly showed them being questioned by the police and them providing proof of their authorisation. It was wholly unclear what further enquiries could have been necessary at the police station. Furthermore, it was of little relevance that aspects of the first demonstration were provocative. The choice of location, chants and slogans insulting the Minister were clearly appropriate given the context of the demonstration (which aimed at criticising the alleged harassment of Hyde Park by the Ministry of Internal Affairs). Nor was the third demonstration violent, as suggested by the Government: the video submitted clearly showed that the protest took place in the most peaceful manner possible with minimal disruption to the public.   As concerned the second demonstration, although unauthorised, the Court noted that the police could have asked the applicants to disperse and reassemble once they had obtained authorisation. Instead, the two applicants concerned had simply been arrested. Nor had there been a security zone which could have given an explanation for why the demonstration had to be broken up prematurely. Moreover, the Court was particularly struck by the high amount of the ensuing fines, which represented 80% of the maximum which could have been imposed.   Thus, the Court concluded that, as concerned all three demonstrations, the police had failed to show the tolerance to be expected of the authorities in a democratic society. The applicants’ arrests, and particularly the fines imposed as a result of the third demonstration, had therefore been disproportionate, in violation of Article 11.   Article   6   §   1 Given its finding under Article 11, the Court held that no separate issues arose under the complaint about the domestic courts’ alleged failure to give sufficient reasons for their decisions.   Just satisfaction Under Article 41, the Court held that in respect of non-pecuniary damage Moldova had to pay Hyde Park EUR 6,000 and Mr Juraveli and Mr Hirstea-Stan EUR 2,000, each; and, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage Ghenadie and Oleg Brega EUR 2,048 and EUR 3,048, respectively.     (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ). To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Emma Hellyer (telephone : +33 3 90 21 42 15) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.