On April, the 7th, another decision in a ECHR case against Republic of Moldova was taken – CASE OF HYDE PARK AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (no. 4). The applicants at ECHR were the organisation Hyde Park (that ceased to exist almost 4 months later, but it didn’t change the facts), and eight natural persons, members and supporters of Hyde Park: Mr Oleg Brega, Mr Anatolie Juraveli, Mr Roman Cotelea, Mr Mariana Galescu, Mr Radu Vasilascu, Mr Vitalie Dragan, Mr Angela Lungu and Mr Anatol Hristea-Stan.
This case concerned the articles 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Article 11 – interference with the right to freedom of assembly. Hyde Park’s application to hold a demonstration between 1 and 31 August 2006 was rejected by the Municipal Council, that argued that one day would be enough for Hyde Park to express it’s view on the authorities refusal to install a monument dedicated to the poet Liviu Rebreanu, donated by the Government of Romania. The Court noted that such a reason is inconsistent. The Court concluded that the Municipality’s refusal to authorise the demonstration did not respond to a pressing social need and thus that it was not necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
Article 5 § 1 -detention. The participants at the meeting were arrested and held under detention for 40 hours for the purpose, argued the Government of Moldova, of bringing them before the competent legal authority on suspicion of having committed several offences. The Court notes that the applicants were charged, inter alia, with resisting arrest and insulting police officers. However, the domestic courts, having viewed the video of the applicants’ arrest found those charges unsubstantiated and dismissed them (see paragraphs 16 and 18 above). In such circumstances, and given the absence of any “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1(c), the Court considers that the applicants’ detention on false charges that they had resisted arrest and insulted police officers cannot be considered “lawful” under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Another reason for the detention, invoked by the Government, was their organising and holding an unauthorised demonstration. The Court notes that they had a valid court judgment authorising the assembly. Moreover, that judgment came into force immediately.
Article 41 – damage. Even if the Government disagreed with these amounts and argued that they were excessive and unsubstantiated, the Court awards EUR 4,000 to Hyde Park, payable to its representatives, Mr A. Postică or Mr P. Postică, to be held and managed on behalf of Hyde Park. It also awards EUR 3,000 to Mr Brega, EUR 3,000 to Ms Galescu and EUR 2,500 to each of the remaining applicants. The damage is to be paid within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.