NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

2.7.3.2 Ban on the activities and refusal to register a political party In the case of Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova , 989 the Court ruled that the temporary ban on the activities of this party was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and was not necessary in a democratic society. Consequently, there had been an infringement of Article 11 of the Convention. The temporary nature of the ban was “not of decisive importance in considering the proportionality of the measure, since even a temporary ban could reasonably be said to have a ‘chilling effect’ on the party’s right to exercise its freedom of expression and to pursue its political goals, the more so since it was imposed on the eve of the local elections.” 990 At the material time, the applicant was a minority parliamentary opposition party. The ban in question was imposed on the applicant party’s activities as a result of gatherings it had organised in order to express its disagreement with the government’s plans to make the study of Russian language compulsory for schoolchildren. The Court observed that the gatherings organized by the party were entirely peaceful. There were no calls to the violent overthrow of the government or any other acts undermining the principles of pluralism and democracy. Therefore, the measure applied was not proportionate to the aim pursued and did not meet a ‘pressing social need’. In 2010, the Court issued the second judgment 991 concerning the Christian Democratic People’s Party. 992 This time it dealt with the state authorities’ refusal to permit a demonstration in which the applicant party intended to protest against alleged anti-democratic abuses committed by the government and against the Russian military presence in the breakaway Transdniestrian region of Moldova. The national courts considered that the slogans ‘Down with Voronin’s totalitarian regime’ and ‘Down with Putin’s occupation regime’ amounted to calls to a violent overthrow of the constitutional regime and an instigation to a war of aggression against Russia. 993 The Court disagreed and noted that such slogans should be understood just as an expression of dissatisfaction and protest. It was not convinced that they could reasonably be considered as a call to violence, even if accompanied by the burning of flags and pictures of Russian leaders. In the present case, the Court also recalled that the freedom of expression refers not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. The Court noted that the applicant party had a record of numerous protest demonstrations which were peaceful and at which no violent clashes had occurred. Hence, it considered that there was nothing to suggest in the applicant party’s actions that it intended to disrupt the public order or to seek confrontation with the authorities. Accordingly, it held again that there had been a breach of Article 11. 994 989 Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova , cited above. 990 Ibid. , § 77. 991 Christian Democratic People’s Party (no. 2) , cited above. 992 CULEAC, P. Contradictory Electoral Behavior and the Post-Soviet Party-system in Republic of Moldova . ProQuest, 2007, p. 80. 993 Christian Democratic People’s Party (no. 2 ), cited above, § 27. 994 Ibid., § 30.

182