{"id":3500,"date":"2008-02-11T12:37:42","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T09:37:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/?page_id=3500"},"modified":"2009-04-04T02:27:57","modified_gmt":"2009-04-04T00:27:57","slug":"dosare-la-cedo","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/?page_id=3500","title":{"rendered":"CEDO.curaj.net"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>__________________________<br \/>\n[VIDEO] <a href=\"http:\/\/video.aol.com\/video-detail\/hyde-park-la-cedo\/1671935235\" target=\"_blank\">Hyde Park la CEDO<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/?p=13300\" target=\"_blank\">CEDO recunoa\u015fte c\u0103 ne-au fost \u00eenc\u0103lcate drepturile \u00een anii 2004 &#8211; 2006<\/a> April 1 st, 2009<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><object classid=\"clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" width=\"350\" height=\"269\" codebase=\"http:\/\/download.macromedia.com\/pub\/shockwave\/cabs\/flash\/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\" \/><param name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\" \/><param name=\"src\" value=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/BbcCFd0qvL8&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca\" \/><embed type=\"application\/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"350\" height=\"269\" src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/BbcCFd0qvL8&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\" allowfullscreen=\"true\"><\/embed><\/object><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a title=\"Permanent Link to Asocia\u0163ia civic\u0103 Hyde Park invit\u0103 la o conferin\u0163\u0103 de pres\u0103\" rel=\"bookmark\" href=\"..\/?p=13273\" target=\"_blank\">Asocia\u0163ia civic\u0103 Hyde Park invit\u0103 la o conferin\u0163\u0103 de pres\u0103<\/a> March 31st, 2009<\/li>\n<li><a title=\"Permanent Link to Victorii importante la CEDO! HP vs MD (1,2,3)\" rel=\"bookmark\" href=\"..\/?p=13238\" target=\"_blank\">Victorii importante la CED<\/a><a title=\"Permanent Link to Victorii importante la CEDO! HP vs MD (1,2,3)\" rel=\"bookmark\" href=\"..\/?p=13238\" target=\"_blank\">O! HP vs MD (1,2,3)<\/a> March 31st, 2009<\/li>\n<li><a title=\"Permanent Link to Ast\u0103zi la amiaz\u0103 vom avea trei hot\u0103r\u00e2ri importante de la CEDO\" rel=\"bookmark\" href=\"..\/?p=13195\" target=\"_blank\">Ast\u0103zi la amiaz\u0103 vom avea trei hot\u0103r\u00e2ri importante de la CEDO<\/a> March 31st, 2009<\/li>\n<li><a title=\"Permanent Link to CEDO s-a pronun\u0163at \u00een trei din cele 6 cazuri Hyde Park!\" rel=\"bookmark\" href=\"..\/?p=12150\" target=\"_blank\">CEDO s-a pronun\u0163at \u00een trei din cele 6 cazuri Hyde Park!<\/a> March 16th, 2009<\/li>\n<li><a title=\"Permanent Link to Dosarul cu poli\u0163i\u015ftii agresivi a ajuns la CEDO\" rel=\"bookmark\" href=\"..\/?p=4026\" target=\"_blank\">Dosarul cu poli\u0163i\u015ftii agresivi a ajuns la CEDO<\/a> February 11th, 2009<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><object classid=\"clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000\" width=\"351\" height=\"269\" codebase=\"http:\/\/download.macromedia.com\/pub\/shockwave\/cabs\/flash\/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\" \/><param name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\" \/><param name=\"src\" value=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/VxPcTC24t5c&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca\" \/><embed type=\"application\/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"351\" height=\"269\" src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/VxPcTC24t5c&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\" allowfullscreen=\"true\"><\/embed><\/object><\/p>\n<ul><\/ul>\n<p><!-- [post-content] --> <!-- [post-content] --><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">_________________________________________________<br \/>\n<strong>Hyde Park a avut c\u00e2\u015ftig de cauz\u0103 la CtEDO \u00een 3 cereri depuse contra Moldovei<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/09\/stepashka.jpg\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"alignright\" title=\"Stepaniuc si drepturile omului...\" src=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/09\/stepashka-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>La 31 martie 2009, Curtea European\u0103 a pronun\u0163at hot\u0103r\u00e2rile<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong><em>Hyde Park \u015fi al\u0163ii c. Moldovei<\/em><\/strong> (cererea nr. <em>33482\/06<\/em>),<strong><em> <\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong><em>Hyde Park \u015fi al\u0163ii c. Moldovei <\/em><\/strong>(cererea nr. <em>45094\/06<\/em>) \u015fi<\/li>\n<li><strong><em>Hyde Park \u015fi al\u0163ii c. Moldovei <\/em><\/strong>(cererea nr. <em>45095\/06<\/em>).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>\u00cen aceste cauze, reclaman\u0163ii sunt organiza\u0163ia neguvernamental\u0103 Hyde Park, care era \u00eenregistrat\u0103 la momentul evenimentelor la Ministerul Justi\u0163iei, \u015fi 5 membri ai organiza\u0163iei, Gheorghe LUPU\u015eORU, Anatol HRISTEA-STAN, Mariana G\u0102LESCU, Alina DIDILIC\u0102 \u015fi\u00a0Oleg BREGA. La 2 iunie 2008 organiza\u0163ia Hyde Park a \u00eencetat s\u0103 existe de drept. Ea a activat \u00een continuare ca asocia\u0163ie ob\u015fteasc\u0103 ne\u00eenregistrat\u0103.\u00a0Aceasta din urm\u0103\u00a0\u015fi-a exprimat inten\u0163ia de a men\u0163ine cererea depus\u0103 de predecesorul s\u0103u.<\/p>\n<p>Reclaman\u0163ii s-au pl\u00e2ns de refuzul autorit\u0103\u0163ilor de a autoriza demonstra\u0163ii pa\u015fnice, \u015fi anume, la 5 ianuarie 2005, \u00een fa\u0163a Ambasadei Rom\u00e2niei, pentru a protesta \u00eempotriva politicii Rom\u00e2niei \u00een privin\u0163a studen\u0163ilor moldoveni (cererea nr. <em>33482\/06<\/em>); la 14 octombrie 2005, \u00eentr-un parc din Chi\u015fin\u0103u,\u00a0\u00een sus\u0163inerea libert\u0103\u0163ii de exprimare (cererea nr. <em>45094\/06<\/em>); \u015fi la 25 februarie 2006, \u00een fa\u0163a Parlamentului,\u00a0\u00eempotriva modului \u201enetransparent\u201d \u00een care a avut loc selectarea \u00een 2006 a reprezentantului Moldovei la concursul de muzic\u0103 Eurovision (cererea nr. <em>45095\/06<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen primul caz Consiliul municipal Chi\u015fin\u0103u a respins autorizarea \u00eentrunirii pe motiv c\u0103 carerea este &#8222;ne\u00eentemeiat\u0103 \u015fi nedorit\u0103, deoarece Guvernul Rom\u00e2n decidea supra finan\u0163\u0103rii\u00a0studiilor cet\u0103\u0163enilor Republicii Moldova \u00een Rom\u00e2nia \u015fi, prin urmare, acesta trebuia s\u0103 decid\u0103 asupra cererii de autorizare \u00een \u00eentrunirii&#8221;. Cea de-a dou\u0103 cerere de autorizare a \u00eentrunirii a fost respins\u0103 pe motiv c\u0103, pentru\u00a0\u00een aceia\u015fi zi, \u00a0care era o zi de s\u0103rb\u0103toare, \u00een centrul Chi\u015fin\u0103ului,\u00a0inclusiv \u00een parcul vizat, au fost programate mai multe evenimente. \u00cen ultima cauz\u0103 autorizarea \u00eentrunirii a fost refuzat\u0103 pe motiv c\u0103 Parlamentul nu era responsabil de organizarea preselec\u0163iei \u015fi deoarece\u00a0selectarea\u00a0a avut loc deja.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen toate cele 3 cauze, reclaman\u0163ii au invocat violarea art. 11 CEDO (libertatea de \u00eentrunire \u015fi asociere) \u015fi a art. 6 \u00a7 1 CEDO (dreptul la un proces echitabil).<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen ceea ce prive\u015fte admisibilitatea, Curtea notat c\u0103 organiza\u0163ia Hyde Park nu mai exist\u0103 ca o organiza\u0163ie \u00eenregistrat\u0103. Totu\u015fi, acest fapt nu constituie o piedic\u0103 pentru a examina cererile \u015fi \u00een privin\u0163a acestui reclamant, deoarece nu s-a contestat niciodat\u0103 faptul c\u0103 organiza\u0163ia nou-creat\u0103 are dreptul s\u0103 cear\u0103 men\u0163inerea cererii, iar Curtea nu\u00a0g\u0103se\u015fte vreun motiv pentru a decide altfel, \u015fi\u00a0deoarece faptul ne\u00eenregistr\u0103rii asocia\u0163iei nu poate afecta prin sine\u00a0dreptul reclamantului de a men\u0163ine cererea\u00a0(<em>mutatis mutandis, Christians against Racism and Fascism v. the United Kingdom<\/em>, nr. 8440\/78, decizia Comisiei\u00a0din 16\u00a0iulie 1980, Decisions and Reports 21, p. 138).<\/p>\n<p>Curtea a constatat, \u00een toate cele 3 cauze, \u00een unanimitate, <strong>violarea art. 11 CEDO<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>Curtea a notat c\u0103 deciziile de respingerii a cererilor Hyde Park de organizare a \u00eentrinirilor a constituit o ingerin\u0163\u0103 \u00een drepturile garantate de art. 11 CEDO. O astfel de ingerin\u0163\u0103 va constitui o violare a art. 11, cu excep\u0163ia cazului c\u00e2nd ea a fost \u201eprev\u0103zut\u0103 de lege\u201d, a urm\u0103rit unul sau mai multe scopuri legitime prev\u0103zute de paragraful 2 \u015fi a fost \u201enecesar\u0103 \u00eentr-o societate democratic\u0103\u201d pentru atingerea acestor scopuri.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen privin\u0163a legalit\u0103\u0163ii ingerin\u0163ei, Curtea a notat c\u0103, potrivit art. 14 al Legii cu privire la organizarea \u015fi desf\u0103\u015furarea \u00eentrunirilor din 21 iunie 1995, Consiliul municipal Chi\u015fin\u0103u era obligat de a expune \u00een scris motivele refuzului de a permite organizarea manifesta\u0163iilor. Potrivit art. 12 (6) al Legii cu privire la \u00eentruniri, o cerere poate fi respins\u0103 doar dac\u0103 Consiliul municipal avea dovezi c\u0103 art. 6 \u015fi 7 ale Legii cu privire la \u00eentruniri puteau fi \u00eenc\u0103lcate cu consecin\u0163e grave pentru societate. Deciziile Consiliului municipal nu par s\u0103 se bazeze pe motivele prev\u0103zute de art. 6 \u015fi 7 ale Legii cu privire la \u00eentruniri. Aceasta \u00een sine poate constitui un temei suficient pentru a constata c\u0103 m\u0103surile nu erau \u201eprev\u0103zute de lege\u201d. Totu\u015fi, Curtea a considerat c\u0103 aceast\u0103 chestiune este legat\u0103 de chestiunea dac\u0103 ingerin\u0163ele erau \u201enecesare \u00eentr-o societate democratic\u0103\u201d. Curtea nu a considerat necesar de a examina dac\u0103 ingerin\u0163ele urm\u0103reau un scop legitim \u015fi a trecut imediat la examinarea propor\u0163ionalit\u0103\u0163ii ingerin\u0163ei.<\/p>\n<p>Referindu-se la caracteristicile unei \u201esociet\u0103\u0163i democratice\u201d, Curtea a acordat o importan\u0163\u0103 special\u0103 pluralismului, toleran\u0163ei \u015fi viziunilor largi. \u00cen acest context, ea a statuat c\u0103, de\u015fi uneori interesele individuale trebuie subordonate celor ale unui grup, democra\u0163ia nu \u00eenseamn\u0103 pur \u015fi simplu c\u0103 opiniile majorit\u0103\u0163ii trebuie \u00eentotdeauna s\u0103 prevaleze: trebuie s\u0103 fie g\u0103sit un echilibru, care s\u0103 asigure un tratament echitabil \u015fi adecvat al minorit\u0103\u0163ilor \u015fi s\u0103 evite orice abuz al unei pozi\u0163ii dominante (a se vedea <em>Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, <\/em>13 august 1981, Seria A nr. 44, p. 25, \u00a7 63 \u015fi <em>Chassagnou and Others v. France<\/em> [GC], nr. 25088\/95 \u015fi 28443\/95, ECHR 1999-III, p. 65, \u00a7 112).<\/p>\n<p>Atunci c\u00e2nd Curtea efectueaz\u0103 controlul prin prisma art. 11 CEDO, sarcina sa nu este de a substitui opiniile autorit\u0103\u0163ilor na\u0163ionale relevante cu opiniile proprii, ci mai degrab\u0103 s\u0103 revizuiasc\u0103 \u00een conformitate cu articolul 11 deciziile pe care acestea le-au emis \u00een exercitarea discre\u0163iei lor. Aceasta nu \u00eenseamn\u0103 c\u0103 ea trebuie s\u0103 se limiteze la stabilirea faptului dac\u0103 statul p\u00e2r\u00e2t \u015fi-a exercitat discre\u0163ia sa \u00een mod rezonabil, atent \u015fi cu bun\u0103-credin\u0163\u0103; ea trebuie s\u0103 examineze pretinsa ingerin\u0163\u0103 \u00een lumina cauzei \u00een ansamblu \u015fi s\u0103 determine dac\u0103 aceasta a fost \u201epropor\u0163ional\u0103 scopului legitim urm\u0103rit\u201d \u015fi dac\u0103 motivele invocate de autorit\u0103\u0163ile na\u0163ionale pentru a o justifica sunt \u201erelevante \u015fi suficiente\u201d. F\u0103c\u00e2nd acest lucru, Curtea trebuie s\u0103 se conving\u0103 c\u0103 autorit\u0103\u0163ile na\u0163ionale au aplicat standarde care au fost \u00een conformitate cu principiile prev\u0103zute \u00een articolul 11 \u015fi, mai mult, c\u0103 ele \u015fi-au bazat deciziile pe o evaluare acceptabil\u0103 a faptelor relevante (a se vedea, <em>United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey<\/em>, 30 ianuarie 1998, \u00a7 47).<\/p>\n<p>Curtea a observat c\u0103 Consiliul municipal a respins cele 3 cereri ale Hyde Park de organizare a demonstra\u0163iilor pe urm\u0103toarele motive: deoarece \u201eprotestul era nedorit \u015fi ne\u00eentemeiat\u201d (cererea nr. <em>33482\/06<\/em>); deoarece pentru aceea\u015fi zi erau planificate o serie de evenimente \u00een centrul ora\u015fului, inclusiv \u00een parcul \u015etefan cel Mare (cererea nr. <em>45094\/06<\/em>); deoarece Parlamentul nu era responsabil de organizarea concursului Eurovision, care a avut loc \u00een Ucraina, \u015fi c\u0103 cererea este lipsit\u0103 de temei, deoarece se refer\u0103 la ac\u0163iuni care deja au avut loc (cererea nr. <em>45095\/06<\/em>). Curtea a notat c\u0103 asemenea motive sunt inconsistente cu prevederile Legii \u00eentrunirilor, care \u00een art. 6 \u015fi 7 stipuleaz\u0103 temeiurile \u00een baza c\u0103rora o cerere de organizare a unei \u00eentruniri poate fi respins\u0103. Asemenea motive nu\u00a0pot fi considerate\u00a0compatibile cu art. 11 CEDO. Nu au existat sugestii c\u0103 organizatorii ar fi inten\u0163ionat s\u0103 atenteze la ordinea public\u0103 sau s\u0103 caute confrunt\u0103ri cu autorit\u0103\u0163ile. Inten\u0163ia lor a fost, mai degrab\u0103, s\u0103 atrag\u0103 aten\u0163ia asupra situa\u0163iei studen\u0163ilor moldoveni \u00een Rom\u00e2nia; s\u0103 organizeze un miting \u00een sus\u0163inerea libert\u0103\u0163ii de exprimare; \u015fi s\u0103 protesteze \u00een privin\u0163a concursului de muzic\u0103 Eurovision \u015fi a modului \u00een care autorit\u0103\u0163ile moldovene\u015fti au organizat votarea \u00een Moldova. Garantarea dreptului la libertatea de \u00eentrunire nu poate fi l\u0103sat\u0103 la discre\u0163ia autorit\u0103\u0163ilor \u015fi la percep\u0163ia lor a ceea ce merit\u0103 sau nu autorizarea. Prin urmare, Curtea nu a putut dec\u00e2t s\u0103 constate c\u0103 refuzul de a autoriza \u00eentrunirile nu a r\u0103spuns unei necesit\u0103\u0163i sociale imperioase.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen acela\u015fi timp, Curtea a notat c\u0103 instan\u0163ele judec\u0103tore\u015fti na\u0163ionale au adus \u015fi alte motive c\u00e2nd au respins cererile de anulare a deciziilor prim\u0103riei. Ea a\u00a0considerat c\u0103 aceste motive urmeaz\u0103 a fi trecute cu vederea, deoarece Legea cu privire la \u00eentruniri nu d\u0103dea dreptul instan\u0163ei judec\u0103tore\u015fti s\u0103 substituie administra\u0163ia local\u0103 \u015fi s\u0103 autorizeze \u00eentrunirile. Mai mult, aceste\u00a0motive au fost indicate \u00een hot\u0103r\u00e2rile judec\u0103tore\u015fti cu mult timp dup\u0103 data planificat\u0103 pentru organizarea \u00eentrunirilor.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen lumina constat\u0103rilor f\u0103cute \u00een temeiul art. 11 CEDO, Curtea nu a considerat necesar\u0103 examinarea separat\u0103 preten\u0163iei privind\u00a0art. 6 \u00a7 1 CEDO.<\/p>\n<p>Curtea a acordat reclaman\u0163ilor <strong>suma total\u0103 de EUR 9,000<\/strong> (c\u00e2te EUR 3,000 \u00een fiecare hot\u0103r\u00e2re) cu titlu de prejudiciu moral \u015fi <strong>suma total\u0103 de EUR 3,000<\/strong> (c\u00e2te EUR 1,000 \u00een fiecare hot\u0103r\u00e2re) cu titlu de costuri \u015fi cheltuieli. Aceste sume urmeaz\u0103 a fi pl\u0103tite reprezentantului reclamantului la Curte.<\/p>\n<p>Reclaman\u0163ii au fost reprezenta\u0163i la CtEDO de c\u0103tre Alexandru POSTIC\u0102, avocat din Chi\u015fin\u0103u \u015fi <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/news\/136.html\" target=\"_blank\">membrul asocia\u0163iei Promo-Lex<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">__________________________<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Pentru cei care nu inteleg ce avem de pierdut in urmatorii ani, va prezentam cateva cifre :<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>pana la (re-)venirea comunistilor la guvernare (in 2001), Rep.Moldova a pierdut un singur dosar la CEDO<\/li>\n<li>in perioada 2001 &#8211; 2007, R.M. a pierdut cca. 110 dosare, iar sumele de bani pe care statul trebuie sa le achite celor nedreptatiti de instantele interne ajung la 4,5 milioane de euro&#8230;<strong> <\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een 2008,<\/strong> la CEDO au fost \u00eenregistrate peste <strong>3965 de dosare \u00eempotriva Rep.Moldova<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>de la \u00eenceputul anului 2008, CEDO a pronun\u0163at circa 30 de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri \u00een privin\u0163a Moldovei, \u00een 23 dintre care a constatat \u00eenc\u0103lcarea drepturilor garantate de Conven\u0163ia European\u0103 a Drepturilor Omului<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"cat\"><strong>Cauze moldovene\u015fti<\/strong><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Sinteza cererilor<\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/2\/61.html\" target=\"_blank\">\u00eempotriva Moldovei<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Listele persoanelor responsabile<\/strong> de <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/2\/66.html\" target=\"_blank\">condamnarea RM la CtEDO<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Prejudiciile acordate<\/strong> de CtEDO pe marginea <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/2\/72.html\" target=\"_blank\">cererilor contra Moldovei<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Analiza hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor CtEDO<\/strong> pronun\u0163ate \u00een <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/2\/75.html\">cauzele moldovene\u015fti \u00een anul 2006<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Jurispruden\u0163a CtEDO<\/strong> privind <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/2\/79.html\" target=\"_blank\">protec\u0163ia propriet\u0103\u0163ii \u00een cauzele moldovene\u015fti<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Ghid practic <\/strong>pentru cet\u0103\u0163enii <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/?p=7129\" target=\"_blank\">care dau statul \u00een judecat\u0103 la CEDO<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Analiza statistic\u0103<\/strong> privind cererile depuse la CtEDO \u00eempotriva Moldovei <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lhr.md\/2\/8.html\" target=\"_blank\">\u015fi examinarea acestora \u00een anul 2007 comparativ cu anul 2006<\/a><\/li>\n<li><strong>Persoanele vinovate de condamnare la CEDO<\/strong> (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/?p=9863\" target=\"_blank\">conform func\u0163iei la ziua comiterii abaterii<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Dosare Hyde Park expediate la CEDO<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Aici aveti linkuri directe la situl oficial CEDO:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/?p=4026\" target=\"_blank\">Un nou dosar va merge la C.E.D.O.<\/a> (cazul cu Avornic)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/cmiskp.echr.coe.int\/tkp197\/view.asp?action=open&amp;documentId=834146&amp;portal=hbkm&amp;source=externalbydocnumber&amp;table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649\" target=\"_blank\">Primele dou\u0103 dosare<\/a> comunicate Guvernului | <a href=\"http:\/\/cmiskp.echr.coe.int\/tkp197\/view.asp?action=open&amp;documentId=834784&amp;portal=hbkm&amp;source=externalbydocnumber&amp;table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649\" target=\"_blank\">Alte patru<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>[RO]<\/p>\n<p>Capitolul IV<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Reclamatia nr. 18491\/07<br \/>\ndin partea O.N.G. HYDE PARK si alte organizatii non-guvernamentale<br \/>\nimpotriva Republicii Moldova<br \/>\ndepusa pe data de 21 februarie 2007<\/p>\n<p><strong>Declararea evenimentelor<\/strong> | <strong>Evenimentele<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Primul petitionar, Hyde Park, reprezinta o organizatie non-guvernamentala din Moldova, reprezentata de presedintele Oleg Brega , iar ceilalti petitionari sunt membrii si suporterii Hyde Park : Oleg Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Roman Cotelea, Mariana Galescu, Radu Vasilascu, Vitalie Dragan, Angela Lungu and Anatol Hristea-Stan. S-au nascut respectiv in 1973, 1988, 1987, 1982, 1983, 1967, 1988 si 1953 si locuiesc in Pepeni, Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Durlesti si Chisinau. Protestatarii sunt reprezentati de A.Postica si P.Postica, avocati din Chisinau si membrii organizatiei non-guvernamentale Promo-Lex.<\/p>\n<p>Evenimentele desfasurate in vara anului 2006 pot fi rezumate dupa cum afirma protestatarii in felul urmator.<\/p>\n<p>Pe data de 30 iunie 2006 Hyde Park a depus o cerere la Consiliul Municipal pentru a obtine autorizatia de a organiza o manifestatie pasnica la rascrucea strazilor Banulescu-Bodoni si \u00aatefan cel Mare nu departe de Guvern, intre 1 si 31 august 2006, pentru a protesta refuzul Ministerului Culturii de a instala monumentul dedicat poetului L.Rebreanu, donat de guvernul Romaniei.<\/p>\n<p>Pe data de 18 iulie 2006 Consiliul Municipal din Chisinau a autorizat cererea cu privire la manifestatie doar pe data de 1 august 2006.in alta zi, Hyde Park a contestat decizia consiliului Municipal in judecata.<\/p>\n<p>Pe data de 29 august 2006 Curtea de Apel din Chisinau, descoperind ca decizia era in favoarea primului petitionar, a invalidat hotarirea Consiliului Municipal din 18 iulie 2006 si a solicitat Cosiliului emiterea autorizatiei primului reclamant pentru a organiza manifestatia in fata blocului Guvernului intre 29 si 31 august 2006. Curtea de Apel a cerut indeplinirea deciziei imediat.<\/p>\n<p>Pe data de 30 august 2006 la 17.00 petitionarii au inceput manifestatia in locul indicat prin hotarirea Curtii de Apel. La 17.15 de participanti s-au apropiat un grup de politisti care au cerut prezentarea autorizatiei. Organizatorii le-au prezentat hotarirea Curtii de Apel. La solicitarea politistilor, doua persoane au plecat sa faca o copie a deciziei respective.in scurt timp dupa aceasta o avangarda de politisti au atacat participantii si toti au fost arestati si dusi la sectorul de politie. Ofiterii le-au luat telefoanele mobile, camerele video impreuna cu toate materialele pregatite pentru manifestatie.<\/p>\n<p>La sectorul de politie protestatarii au fost inchisi in camere diferite in grupuri a cite 3 sau 4 persoane. Doua fete au fost inchise intr-o camera separata.Protestatarilor li s-a interzis convorbirile telefonice si consultarea cu avocatul. Camerele erau micute, pline de noroi si cu o umiditate inalta, cu un miros puternic de urina si excremente.. Nu aveau ferestre, lumina era intotdeauna aprinsa si erau doar 2 banci de lemn.. Participantii au fost detinuti 14 ore fara a fi hraniti. Li s-a dat doar apa si le-au permis sa mearga la viceu. Doar dupa interventia a citorva ONG-uri a drepturilor omului, si dupa 16 ore de detentie, rudelor li s-a permis sa le aduca de mincare. Pe data de 1 septembrie 2006 ei au fost aduti in judecata.intrucit audierea a fost anulata, ei au fost eliberati la ora 24.00.<\/p>\n<p>Politistii le-au intors toate lucrurile personale, cu exceptia materialelor pregatite pentru manifestatie. Toate fisierele audio, video si imaginile din telefoanele mobile si din camerele video au fost sterse cu excetia unei secvente video care era in favoarea politiei. inainte de a fi eliberati, detinutii au fost informati ca ei au fost acuzati pentru petrecerea unei manifestatii neautorizate. Ei au fost deasemenea acuzati de nesubordonarea la ordinul legal a politiei de a inceta manifestatia, de insultarea ofiterilor de politie si provocarea trecatorilor.Deasemenea au fost acuzati de impotrivirea de a fi arestati si defaimarea demnitatii profesionale a politistilor.<\/p>\n<p>Pe 18 septembrie 2006 petitionarii au depus o plingere contra ofiterilor care i-au arestat. Ei au reclamat abuzul , detentia ilegala si conditiile inumane de detentie.<\/p>\n<p>Pe 26 septembrie 2006 plingerea a fost respinsa de Procuratura Centrala.Petitionarii au contestat aceasta decizie, totusi apelul a fost respins .<\/p>\n<p>Pe 3 ctombrie 2006 sectorul de politie Buiucani a declarat ca toti participantii sunt vinovati de faptul ca au organizat o manifestatie neautoizata. Judecatoria a constatat ca dupa obtinerea deciziei agreabile din partea Curtii de Apel, ei trebuiau sa solicite aprobarea si din partea Consiliului Municipal.Curtea Suprema a penalizat fiecare participant cu o amenda in valoare de 200 lei, cu exceptia d-lui Oleg Brega (presedintele Hyde Park) care a fost penalizat cu o amenda de 500 lei.Toti au achitat amenzile respective.<\/p>\n<p>Toti reclamantii au contestat decizia si au afirmat ca Hyde Park a inaintat o cerere Consiliului Municipal pentru a obtine autorizatia pe 30 august 2006; totusi solicitarea sa a fost respinsa din motiv ca decizia Curtii de Apel din 29 august 2006 nu a luata definitiv.<\/p>\n<p>Pe 26 octombrie 2006 Curtea Suprema de Justitie a preluat cererile d-lui O.Brega si A Hristea-Stan si a invalidat decizia din 3 octombrie 2006 in favoarea lor. S-a dovedit ca manifestatia a fost autorizata prin decizia din 29 august 2006 care trebuia sa fie executata imediat.<\/p>\n<p>Pe 1 noiembrie 2006 Curtea Suprema de Justitie a aprobat reclamatia in depusa de catre Consiliul Municipal contra deciziei Curtii de Apel din 29 august 2006, anulind sentinta respectiva si refuzind actiunile protestatarilor din motiv ca decizia din 18 iulie 2006 a Consiliului Municipal a fost legala.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Reclamatiile<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>Protestatarii au inaintat plingere referitor la art. 3 al Conventiei despre comportamentul inuman si degradant.<\/p>\n<p>2. Deasemenea plingerea se refera si la art. 5 \u00a7 1 al Conventiei precum ca detentia a fost ilegala.<\/p>\n<p>3. Conform art. 5 \u00a7 2, protestatarii contesta faptul ca ei nu au fost informati imediat despre motivele arestarii si acuzatii.<\/p>\n<p>4. Ei afirma ca s-a incalcat art. 5 \u00a7 3 al Conventiei, si anume faptul ca ei nu au fost adusi imediat in fata unui judecator.<\/p>\n<p>5.in plus protestatarii sustin ca procedurile care au culminat cu decizia Curtii Supreme de Justitie au fost incorecte din cauza ca Curtea Suprema de Justitie nu a fost neutra, si a renuntat sa argumenteze sentinta.<\/p>\n<p>6. Protestatarii deasemenea contesta perturbarea nejustificata si disproportionata a drepturilor lor garantate de art. 8 al Conventiei, tinind cont de faptul ca politia a verificat infomatia din telefoanele lor mobile si ilegal au sters informatia.<\/p>\n<p>7. Conform art. 11 al Conventiei, protestatarii afirma ca dreptul la libertatea intrunirii a fost incalcat.<\/p>\n<p>8. in sfirsit ei afirma ca nu au avut parte de o compensatie eficienta pentru incalcarea drepturilor garantata de art. 8 al Conventiei.<\/p>\n<p><strong>intrebarile partilor:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. Au fost supusi participantii la comportamet inuman si degradant incalcindu-se art. 3 al Conventiei?<\/p>\n<p>2. A fost privatiunea de libertate ilegala incalcindu-se art. 5 \u00a7 1 al Conventiei? Se incadreaza privatiunea de libertate din 30 august pina la 1 septembrie 2006 in paragraful (c) a acestei prevederi?<\/p>\n<p>3. Au fost protestatarii informati imediat de motivele arestului si a acuzatiilor, respectind art. 5 si 2 al Conventiei?<\/p>\n<p>4. Au fost ei imediat adusi in fata unui judecator, conform art. 5 \u00a7 3 al Conventiei?<\/p>\n<p>5. A fost vre-o perturbare a dreptului de a respecta viata privata, conform art. 8 \u00a7 1 al Conventiei, luind in consideratie fatul ca politia a verificat memoria telefoanelor mobile, si au distrus o parte din informatie?Daca da, a fost perturbarea in conformitate cu legea in termenii art. 8 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>6. A fost vre-o interferenta a dreptului la libera intrunire art. 11 \u00a7 1 al Conventiei? Daca da, atunci a fost aceasta interferenta conform legii art. 11 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>7. Au avut protestatarii parte de o despagubire eficienta pentru plingerea lor conform art. 8, asa cum este mentionat in art. 13 al Conventiei.<\/p>\n<p>8. Guvernului i s-a cerut sa prezinte o copie a originalului tuturor actelor referitor la procedurile admnistrative aplicate contra reclamant; o copie a originalului actelor referitor la plingerea din 18 septembrie 2006; si o copie a originalului actelor referitor la procedurile care s-au finisat cu sentinta Curtii Supreme de Justitie din 1 noiembrie 2006.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Capitolul IV<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>ECHR-LE4.1aR 10 April 2008<br \/>\nRP\/RP\/lcb<\/p>\n<p>Reclamatia no. 18491\/07<br \/>\nHyde Park ONG si alti membri. Moldova (4)<\/p>\n<p>Stimate domn,<\/p>\n<p>tin sa va informez ca urmind o preliminara examinare a admisibilitatii reclamatiei mentionate mai sus presedintele Consiliului caruia i s-a alocat acest caz a decis ca ,in data de 8 Aprilie 2008, conform Legii 54 \u00a7 2 (b) a legilor Consiliului, avizul reclamatiei trebuie sa fie inaintat Guvernului Republicii Moldova si Guvernul trebuie sa fie invitat de a prezenta in scris examinarile referitor la admisibilitate si valorile acestui caz.<\/p>\n<p>Reclamatia pretinde a avea admisibilitatea si meritul sau de a fi examinata in acelasi timp, in conformitate cu art. 29 \u00a7 3 al Conventiei si a legii 54A. De aceea imediat dupa ce Curtea Europeana va considera reclamatia admisibila si pregatita pentru sentinta, va fi adoptata o hotarire conform legii 54A \u00a7 2.<\/p>\n<p>Guvernului i s-a cerut sa prezinte examinarile sale catre 31 iulie 2008.Acestea va vor fi transmise , pentru ca la rindul d-stra sa prezentati examinarile ca raspuns din partea participantilor, impreuna cu orice cerere pentru acceptare , conform art. (cf. Legea 60).<\/p>\n<p>Guvernului i s-a cerut sa se ocupe de intrebarile stabilite in documentul atasat acestui document .<br \/>\nGuvernului deasemenea i s-a cerut sa indice pina la data limita indicata, pozitia lor referitor la o reglementare pasnica a acestui caz si sa prezinte propunerile pe care ar dori sa le inainteze in acest scop. (Legea 62.) Aceeasi cerinta va fi inaintata cind d-stra veti primi examinarile lor.<\/p>\n<p>Vreau sa va informez ca la etapa aceata a procedurilor, conform legii 34 \u00a7 3, toate reclamatiile protestatarilor sau a reprezentatior lor, trebuie prezentate in una din limbili oficiale ale Curtii . engleza sau franceza.<\/p>\n<p>Atentionez asupra legii 33 a legilor Curtii, conform careia documentele depuse impreuna cu inregistrarea lor de catre parti sau a uneia a treia parti trebuie sa fie accesibile publicului, cu exceptia faptului ca presedintele decide altfel din motivele stabilite in 33 \u00a7 2. Conform regulei generale, orice informatie care se contine in actele depuse la Registratura, inclusiv informatia depsre persoanele identificate sau neidentificate, trebuie sa fie acce sibile publicului.Mai mult decit atit, astfel de informatie poate sa apara in baza de date a Consiliului European , HUDOC, accesibila prin internet, in cazul in care Consilul va decide sa includa cazul dat ca stabilirea faptelor pregatite pentru notificarea cazului Guvernului, o decizie a admisibilitatii sau a refuzului, sau a altei sentinte.<\/p>\n<p>Cu respect,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">T.L. Early<br \/>\nSectia Regstru<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<\/p>\n<p>[EN]<\/p>\n<p>Application no. 33482\/06<br \/>\nby HYDE PARK ONG and Others<br \/>\nagainst Moldova<\/p>\n<p>lodged on 11 May 2006<\/p>\n<p>STATEMENT OF FACTS<br \/>\nTHE FACTS<br \/>\nThe first applicant, Hyde Park is a non-governmental organisation based in Moldova. It is represented by its president, Mr Oleg Brega. The other applicants are members and supporters of the first applicant: Gheorghe Lupusoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Galescu, Alina Didilica and Oleg Brega who were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively. The applicants are represented by Mr A. Postica, a lawyer practising in Chisinau, and a member of the non-governmental organisation Promo-Lex.<br \/>\nA. The circumstances of the case<br \/>\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<br \/>\nOn 6 December 2004 the first applicant applied to the Chisinau Municipal Council for an authorisation to hold a peaceful meeting in front of the Embassy of Romania on 5 January 2005, to protest against the policy of Romania in respect of Moldovan students.<br \/>\nOn 30 December 2004 the Chisinau Municipal Council rejected the application on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicants\u2019 protest was unfounded and unwelcome.<br \/>\nOn 3 January 2005 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful. It also asked that the case be examined urgently.<br \/>\nOn 21 February 2005 the Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s action while finding that the Municipal Council had acted within its competence.<br \/>\nThe first applicant appealed against this judgment and argued that the judgment had breached the right of its members to hold peaceful meetings in public places.<br \/>\nOn 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and ordered a re-examination of the case.<br \/>\nOn 6 October 2005 the Chisinau Court of Appeal again dismissed the action on the basis that the holding of a protest meeting in front of the Embassy of Romania might prejudice the image of the Moldovan State and of the Moldovan people. Moreover, the decision to hold a protest meeting had not been adopted by the Council of Hyde Park, as required by its Statute. Also the Statute of Hyde Park did not contain in its list of activities actions such as holding protest meetings. The first applicant appealed.<br \/>\nOn 14 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law.<\/p>\n<p>COMPLAINTS<br \/>\n1. The applicants complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the courts did not give sufficient reasons in their judgments and that the proceedings were excessively long.<br \/>\n2. They also complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of assembly was violated.<\/p>\n<p>QUESTION TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n<p>Has there been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<\/p>\n<p>Application no. 45094\/06<br \/>\nby HYDE PARK O.N.G. and Others<br \/>\nagainst Moldova<br \/>\nlodged on 25 August 2006<\/p>\n<p>STATEMENT OF FACTS<br \/>\nTHE FACTS<\/p>\n<p>The first applicant, Hyde Park, is a non-governmental organisation based in Moldova. It is represented by its president, Mr Oleg Brega. The other applicants are members and supporters of the first applicant: Gheorghe Lupusoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Galescu, Alina Didilica and Oleg Brega who were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively. The applicants are represented by Mr A. Postica, a lawyer practising in Chisinau, and a member of the non-governmental organisation Promo-Lex.<br \/>\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<br \/>\nOn 26 September 2005 the first applicant applied to the Chisinau Municipal Council for an authorisation to hold a peaceful meeting in the Stefan cel Mare Park in Chisinau on 14 October 2005, in support of freedom of speech.<br \/>\nOn 7 October 2005 the Chisinau Municipal Council rejected the application on the ground that on the same date a number of events were planned in the city centre, including in the Stefan cel Mare Park, on the occasion of a public holiday. This decision was mailed to the first applicant on 10 October and was received by it on 12 October 2005.<br \/>\nOn 12 October 2005 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also asked that the case be examined urgently.<br \/>\nOn 2 December 2005 the Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s action while finding that the Municipal Council had lawfully rejected its application. The court considered that since other events were scheduled to take place in the park on that day, such as exhibitions, sports events, concerts and other manifestations, the first applicant\u2019s meeting would hinder those events and endanger public order.<br \/>\nThe first applicant appealed against this judgment and argued that the judgment breached the right of its members to hold peaceful meetings in public places contrary to Article 11 of the Convention.<br \/>\nOn 3 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the first applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law.<br \/>\nCOMPLAINTS<br \/>\n1. The applicants complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the courts did not give sufficient reasons in their judgments and that the proceedings were excessively long.<br \/>\n2. They also complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of assembly was violated.<\/p>\n<p>QUESTION TO THE PARTIES<br \/>\nHas there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<\/p>\n<p>FOURTH SECTION<br \/>\nApplication no. 45095\/06<br \/>\nby HYDE PARK O.N.G. and Others<br \/>\nagainst Moldova<br \/>\nlodged on 25 August 2006<\/p>\n<p>STATEMENT OF FACTS<br \/>\nTHE FACTS<br \/>\n1. The first applicant, Hyde Park, is a non-governmental organisation based in Moldova. It is represented by its president, Mr Oleg Brega. The other applicants are members and supporters of the first applicant: Gheorghe Lupusoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Galescu, Alina Didilica and Oleg Brega. They were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively. The applicants are represented by Mr A. Postica, a lawyer practising in Chisinau, and a member of the non-governmental organisation Promo-Lex.<br \/>\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<br \/>\nOn 10 February 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chisinau Municipal Council for an authorisation to hold a peaceful meeting in front of the Parliament building on 25 February 2006, to protest against the \u201cnon-transparent\u201d manner of organising the Eurovision televoting.<br \/>\nOn 21 February 2006 the Chisinau Municipal Council rejected the application on the ground that the reason for the protest was groundless since the Parliament was not responsible for organising the Eurovision song contest, which was the responsibility of the authorities of Ukraine.<br \/>\nOn 22 February 2006 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. It also asked that the case be examined urgently.<br \/>\nOn 24 February 2006 the Chisinau Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s action, finding that the Municipal Council had lawfully rejected its application and upholding all the reasons relied upon by it.<br \/>\nThe first applicant appealed against this judgment and argued that the judgment had breached the right of its members to hold peaceful meetings in public places contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.<br \/>\nOn 28 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law.<br \/>\nCOMPLAINTS<br \/>\n1. The applicants complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the courts did not give sufficient reasons in their judgments and that the proceedings were excessively long.<br \/>\n2. They also complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of assembly was violated.<\/p>\n<p>QUESTION TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n<p>Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2?<br \/>\n&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\nApplication no. 18491\/07<br \/>\nby HYDE PARK O.N.G. and Others<br \/>\nagainst Moldova<br \/>\nlodged on 21 February 2007<\/p>\n<p>STATEMENT OF FACTS<br \/>\nTHE FACTS<br \/>\nThe first applicant, Hyde Park, is a non-governmental organisation based in Moldova. It is represented by its president, Mr Oleg Brega. The other applicants are members and supporters of the first applicant: Oleg Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Roman Cotelea, Mariana Galescu, Radu Vasilascu, Vitalie Dragan, Angela Lungu and Anatol Hristea-Stan. They were born in 1973, 1988, 1987, 1982, 1983, 1967, 1988 and 1953 respectively and live in Pepeni, Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Chisinau, Durlesti and Chisinau respectively. The applicants are represented by Mr A. Postica and P. Postica, lawyers practising in Chisinau, and members of the non-governmental organisation Promo-Lex.<br \/>\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<br \/>\nOn 30 June 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chisinau Municipal Council for an authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration at the crossing of Banulescu-Bodoni and Stefan cel Mare streets, not far from the Government building, between 1 and 31 August 2006, to protest against the refusal of the Ministry of Culture to install a monument dedicated to the poet Liviu Rebreanu, donated by the Government of Romania.<br \/>\nOn 18 July 2006 the Chisinau Municipal Council authorised the holding of a demonstration only on 1 August 2006.<br \/>\nOn an unspecified date the first applicant challenged the Municipal Council\u2019s decision in court.<br \/>\nOn 29 August 2006 the Chisinau Court of Appeal found in favour of the first applicant, quashed the Municipal Council\u2019s decision of 18 July 2006 and ordered the Municipal council to issue an authorisation to the first applicant to hold a demonstration in front of the Government building between 29 and 31 August 2006. The court ordered that its judgment be enforced immediately.<br \/>\nOn 30 August 2006 at 5 p.m. the applicants started their demonstration at the place indicated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. At 5.15 p.m. the applicants were approached by a group of police officers who asked whether they had an authorisation. The applicants showed them the judgment of the Court of Appeal. At the request of the police officers, two of the applicants went to make a copy of the judgment. Shortly thereafter a police van approached the applicants and all of them were arrested and taken to a police station. The police officers took the applicants\u2019 mobile telephones and cameras as well as all the materials used for the demonstration.<br \/>\nAt the police station, the applicants were locked in different cells in groups of three or four persons. The two female applicants were put in a separate cell. The applicants were not allowed to make any telephone calls or to consult a lawyer. The cells were small, humid and dirty. They smelled of urine and faeces. They did not have windows, the electric light was always on and there were only two wooden benches inside. The applicants were held in detention for approximately forty hours during which time they were not provided with any food. They were only provided with water and occasionally taken to a toilet. Only after the intervention of several human rights NGOs and after sixteen hours of detention, were their relatives allowed to bring them food. On 1 September 2006 they were taken to court. Since the hearing was adjourned they were released at 12 noon.<br \/>\nThe police returned to the applicants all their belongings except for the materials used for the demonstration. All the audio, video and image files from their mobile telephones and cameras were deleted with the exception of one video favourable to the police. Before release the applicants were informed that they were accused of having held an unauthorised demonstration. They were also accused of insubordination to the legitimate demands of the police to stop the demonstration, of insulting police officers and instigating passers-by to insubordination. They were also accused of resisting arrest and denigrating the professional dignity of the police officers.<br \/>\nOn 18 September 2006 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had arrested them. They complained about abuse, illegal detention and inhuman conditions of detention.<br \/>\nOn 26 September 2006 the criminal complaint was dismissed by the Centru Prosecutor\u2019s Office. The applicants appealed against this decision; however, the appeal was dismissed on an unspecified date.<br \/>\nOn 3 October 2006 the Buiucani District Court found all applicants (except for the first applicant) guilty of holding an unauthorised demonstration. The court found that after obtaining a favourable judgment from the Court of Appeal, they should have applied to the Municipal Council for authorisation. The court fined each applicant except for Mr O. Brega (the president of Hyde Park) 200 Moldovan Lei (MDL). Mr O. Brega was fined MDL 500. All the applicants were acquitted of the rest of the charges.<br \/>\nAll the applicants appealed against this decision and argued, inter alia, that Hyde Park had applied to the Municipal Council for an authorisation on 30 August 2006; however, its request was dismissed on the ground that the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 29 August 2006 was not yet in force.<br \/>\nOn 26 October 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeals of Mr O. Brega and Mr A. Hristea-Stan and quashed the judgment of 3 October 2006 in their respect. It found that the demonstration had been authorised by the judgment of 29 August 2006, which judgment was to be enforced immediately.<br \/>\nOn 1 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the Municipal Council against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 29 August 2006, quashed that judgment and dismissed the applicant\u2019s action while finding that the Municipal Council\u2019s decision of 18 July 2006 was lawful.<br \/>\nCOMPLAINTS<br \/>\n1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about inhuman and degrading treatment.<br \/>\n2. They also complain under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their detention was unlawful.<br \/>\n3. Under Article 5 \u00a7 2, the applicants complain that they were not informed promptly about the reasons for their arrest and about the charges against them.<br \/>\n4. The applicants also complain under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that they were not brought promptly before a judge.<br \/>\n5. The applicants further submit that the proceedings which culminated with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice had been unfair because the Supreme Court of Justice was not impartial and failed to give reasons for its judgment.<br \/>\n6. The applicants also complain about an unjustified and disproportionate interference with their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on account of the fact that the police browsed their mobile telephones and unlawfully deleted files from them.<br \/>\n7. Under Article 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their right to freedom of assembly was violated.<br \/>\n8. The applicants finally complain that they did not have an effective remedy against the breach of their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.<br \/>\nQUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n<p>1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?<\/p>\n<p>2. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 30 August and 1 September 2006 fall within paragraph (c) of this provision?<\/p>\n<p>3. Were the applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest and of any charge against them, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention?<\/p>\n<p>4. Were the applicants brought promptly before a judge, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention?<\/p>\n<p>5. Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the police officers searched the memory of their mobile telephones and destroyed parts of them? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>6. Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>7. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?<\/p>\n<p>8. The Government are asked to submit a copy of the full version of the case files concerning the administrative proceedings against the applicants; a copy of the full version of the case file concerning the applicants\u2019 criminal complaint of 18 September 2006; and a copy of the full version of the case file concerning the proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 1 November 2006.<br \/>\n&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\nApplication no. 6991\/08<br \/>\nby HYDE PARK and Others<br \/>\nagainst Moldova<br \/>\nlodged on 8 December 2007<\/p>\n<p>STATEMENT OF FACTS<br \/>\nTHE FACTS<br \/>\nThe first applicant, Hyde Park is an unincorporated association from the Republic of Moldova. It is formed of members of the Hyde Park non-governmental organisation which dissolved itself on 22 April 2007 and decided to continue its activity within an unincorporated association. The other applicants are members and supporters of the first applicant: Ghenadie Brega, Anatolie Juraveli and Oleg Brega who were born in 1975, 1988 and 1973 respectively and live in Pepeni, Chisinau and Pepeni respectively. All the applicants are represented by Mr Oleg Brega.<br \/>\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<br \/>\nOn 30 August 2007 the police suppressed a peaceful demonstration authorised by the Municipal Council and organised by the applicants. On the same date, the applicants applied to the Municipal Council for an authorisation to protest against the suppression in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office between 4 and 11 September 2007.<br \/>\nSince the Municipal Council did not adopt a decision by that date, on 4 September 2007 at 9 a.m., the applicants started their protest in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.<br \/>\nAt 9.25 a.m. the individual applicants were arrested on the ground that their demonstration had not been authorised. They were taken to a police station where they were searched and kept for approximately five hours. Later they were taken to the Centru District Court and since the hearing was adjourned, they were released at 3 p.m.<br \/>\nOn 21 September 2007 the Centru District Court found the applicants guilty of holding an unauthorised demonstration and ordered Mr O. Brega and Mr G. Brega to pay fines in the amount of 800 Moldovan lei (MDL) each and another member of Hyde Park in the amount of MDL 200. The applicants appealed but their appeal was dismissed by a final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 23 October 2007.<br \/>\nCOMPLAINTS<br \/>\n1. The applicants complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the courts did not give sufficient reasons in their judgments and that the proceedings were excessively long.<br \/>\n2. They also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were unlawfully subjected to body searches.<br \/>\n3. They also complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of assembly was violated.<br \/>\nQUESTION TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n<p>Has there been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2?<br \/>\n&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br \/>\nApplication no. 15084\/08<br \/>\nby HYDE PARK and Others<br \/>\nagainst Moldova<br \/>\nlodged on 20 February 2008<\/p>\n<p>STATEMENT OF FACTS<br \/>\nTHE FACTS<br \/>\nThe first applicant, Hyde Park, is an unincorporated association in the Republic of Moldova. It is formed of members of the Hyde Park non-governmental organisation which dissolved itself on 22 April 2007 and decided to continue its activity within the framework of an unincorporated association. The other applicants are members and supporters of the first applicant: Ghenadie Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Oleg Brega and Anatol Hristea-Stan who were born in 1975, 1988, 1973 and 1953 respectively and live in Pepeni, Chisinau, Pepeni and Chisinau respectively. All the applicants are represented by Mr Oleg Brega.<br \/>\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<br \/>\nOn an unspecified date the applicants applied to the Municipal Council for an authorisation to stage a protest on 30 August 2007 in front of the Ministry of External Affairs and the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office against the harassment of Hyde Park.<br \/>\nOn 20 August 2007 the Municipal Council authorised the protest, to be staged on 30 August 2007 in front of the buildings of the Ministry of External Affairs and the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office between 7.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. at a distance of at least fifty metres from the buildings.<br \/>\nOn 30 August 2007, at 7.30 a.m., the applicants started their protest in front of the Ministry of External Affairs but were immediately approached by a group of police officers who ordered them to stop the protest because the authorisation had been challenged by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office. The applicants refused to comply and argued that the authorisation was valid.<br \/>\nAt 7.45 a.m. four members of Hyde Park were arrested and taken to a police station where they were questioned for approximately two hours. At approximately 9.30 a.m. they were released without any explanation; however, they could not continue their protest because the time indicated in the authorisation had lapsed.<br \/>\nOn the same date, the applicant organisation applied to the Municipal Council for an authorisation to stage a protest in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor\u2019s Office against the abusive suppression of its peaceful protest. An authorisation was issued on 7 September 2007 authorising the applicant organisation to stage a protest in front of the buildings of the above institutions between 8 and 11 September 2007.<br \/>\nThe applicant organisation also lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had arrested its members; however, the complaint was dismissed by the head of the Police Station of the Centru District on 19 September 2007 on the ground that the authorisation contained numerous flaws such as the failure to indicate precisely the exact place of the protest and the number of participants.<br \/>\nIn the morning of 10 September 2007 several members of Hyde Park started to protest in front of the buildings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office; however several minutes later the police arrived and arrested three persons (Anatolie Juraveli, Oleg Brega and Anatol Hristea-Stan) on the ground that the authorisation did not contain the names of all the persons involved in the protest. At the police station the arrested persons were questioned and searched and then released after five hours. During detention they were not allowed to make any telephone calls or to contact a lawyer.<br \/>\nThe police filed administrative proceedings against the arrested persons; however, on 21 September 2007 the Centru District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings.<br \/>\nCOMPLAINT<br \/>\nThe applicants complain under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of speech and of assembly was breached.<\/p>\n<p>QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n<p>1. Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of speech, within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>2. Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2?<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<\/p>\n<p>Dosare expediate de <strong>ACI Hyde Park<\/strong> la CEDO in ultimii trei ani :<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>A VI-a cerere<\/strong> Hyde Park versus Rep.Moldova<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>EXPUNEREA FAPTELOR<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(1) in fapt, Asociatia Civica Internationala Hyde Park este o organizatie non-profit, neformala, succesoare a ONG Hyde Park legal inregistrata in perioada 13 iunie 2003 \u2013 noiembrie 2007. in urma adunarii generale din 22.04.07 ONG Hyde Park s-a autodizolvat formal si va continua sa activeze ca asociatie neformala. Promoveaza libertatea cuvintului si dreptul la informare, implicarea civica a cetatenilor. Actualmente intruneste 15 membri asociati benevol si functioneaza in baza statutului adoptat la 11.05.03, cu modificari din 08.03.05, 9.04.06 si 22 aprilie 2007.<br \/>\n(2) Noi, semnatarii, suntem membri si sustinatori ai ACI Hyde Park de la data fondarii.<br \/>\n(3) Una din prioritatile ACI HP este incurajarea cetatenilor sa-si faca auzite opiniile care se manifesta prin dezbaterea publica a problemelor si intrunirile pe care le organizam. Numai pe parcursul anului 2007, am avut peste 30 de intruniri in mai multe tari. Acestea s-au desfasurat in diverse localitati rurale si urbane. Mitingurile au fost pasnice, unele fiind actiuni de promovare, intruniri culturale, altele de protest: pichetari, marsuri, greva foamei, dar niciodata participantii nu au creat probleme organizatorilor sau autoritatilor.<\/p>\n<p>(4) Conform legislatiei Republicii Moldova (Legea cu privire la organizarea si desfasurarea intrunirilor) cererea cu privire la desfasurarea unei intruniri se va depune in termen de cel putin 15 zile pina la momentul intrunirii. Cererea poate fi depusa atit de o persoana fizica cit si de o persoana juridica.<br \/>\n(5) La data de 26 septembrie 2005 <strong>a fost depusa o cerere prealabila<\/strong> din partea ONG \u201eHyde Park\u201d, semnata de presedintele acestei asociatii \u2013 O. Brega <strong>prin care a fost solicitata autorizarea unei intruniri la data de 14 octombrie 2005<\/strong>, ce va fi desfasurata sub forma de <strong>miting de incurajare a libertatii cuvintului, pe Aleea Clasicilor<\/strong> din Gradina Publica \u201e\u00aatefan cel Mare\u201d, la intrarea din str. 31 August 1989, intre orele 12.00 si 17.00.<br \/>\n(6) La data de 07 octombrie 2005 prin Dispozitia Primariei mun. Chisinau, cu nr.924-d[1], <strong><em>a fost dispusa respingerea declaratiei prealabile<\/em><\/strong> sub pretext ca la data de 14 octombrie 2005, se va sarbatori Hramul orasului si, conform programului municipal vor avea loc mai multe manifestatii culturale, inclusiv si in Gradina Publica \u201e\u00aatefan cel Mare si Sfint\u201d.<br \/>\n(7) Avind in vedere ca motivele refuzului erau neintemeiate in opinia noastra, <strong>am inaintat o cerere de chemare in judecata<\/strong> la data de 12.10.2005, prin care am solicitat anularea dispozitiei, deoarece nu ne-a fost autorizata intrunirea[2].<br \/>\n(8) Cererea a fost examinata de catre Curtea de Apel Chisinau, hotarirea fiind emisa tocmai la 02 decembrie 2005[3]. <strong>Instanta de judecata a respins cererea de chemare in judecta<\/strong> si a mentinut dispozitia contestata, instanta a sustinut opinia invocata in dispozitia contestata si s-a referit la legalitatea procedurii de adoptare a deciziei. in acelasi timp a mentionat ca temei de refuz a intrunirii riscul ca vor incalcate conditiile de organizare a manifestarii cu consecinte grave pentru societate.<br \/>\n(9) impotriva hotaririi nominalizate <strong>am depus o cerere de recurs<\/strong> la Curtea Suprema de Justitie[4].<br \/>\n(10) La data de 03 mai 2006 <strong>Curtea Suprema de Justitie a respins cererea de recurs<\/strong> declarata de catre petitionar, mentinind hotarirea contestata. Este de remarcat faptul ca decizia Curtii Supreme de Justitie a RM a invocat aceleasi temeiuri de respingere ca si Curtea de Apel Chisinau. Decizia Curtii Supreme de Justitie este irevocabila din momentul pronuntarii.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<\/p>\n<p>[1] Copia dispozitiei se anexeaza; [2] Copia cererii de chemare in judecata se anexeaza; [3] Copia Hotaririi se anexeaza; [4] Copia recursului se anexeaza;<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>A III-a cerere<\/strong> Hyde Park versus Rep.Moldova<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>EXPUNEREA FAPTELOR<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(&#8230;) (4) Conform legislatiei Republicii Moldova (Legea cu privire la organizarea si desfasurarea intrunirilor) cererea cu privire la desfasurarea unei intruniri se va depune in termen de cel putin 15 zile pina la momentul intrunirii. Cererea poate fi depusa atit de o persoana fizica cit si de o persoana juridica.<br \/>\n(5) La data de 10 februarie 2006 <strong>a fost depusa o cerere<\/strong> din partea ONG \u201eHyde Park\u201d, semnata de presedintele acestei asociatii \u2013 O. Brega prin care <strong>a fost solicitata autorizarea unei intruniri de protest in fata Parlamentului Rep.Moldova pentru data de 25 februarie 2006<\/strong>, intre orele 11.00 si 13.00, protestul urma sa fie efectuat <strong>ca urmare a modului de organizare a concursului \u201eEurovision 2005\u201d<\/strong> si anume de <strong>lipsa de transparenta a voturilor <\/strong>care au fost acordate de catre Compania Publica Teleradio Moldova din partea telespectatorilor interpretilor la acest concurs.<br \/>\n(6) La data de 21 februarie 2006 prin Dispozitia Primariei mun. Chisinau, cu nr.158-d , <strong>a fost dispusa respingerea declaratiei prealabile sub pretext ca temeiurile protestului sunt inoportune si nefondate<\/strong>, deoarece Parlamanetul Republicii Moldova nu are nici o atributie cu organizarea si desfasurarea concursului \u201eEurovision 2005\u201d, concursul fiind organizat de catre autoritatile Ukrainei.<br \/>\n(7) Avind in vedere ca motivele refuzului erau aberante si neintemeiate in opinia noastra, <strong>am inaintat o cerere de chemare in judecata<\/strong> la data de 22.02.2006, prin care am solicitat anularea dispozitiei, deoarece nu ne-a fost autorizata intrunirea .<br \/>\n(8) Cererea a fost examinata de catre Curtea de Apel Chisinau, hotarirea fiind emisa la 24 februarie 2006 . <strong>Instanta de judecata a respins cererea<\/strong> de chemare in judecta si a mentinut dispozitia contestata, instanta a sustinut opinia invocata in dispozitia contestata si s-a referit la legalitatea procedurii de adoptare a deciziei.<br \/>\n(9) La data de 24 februarie 2006, <strong>am depus o cerere de recurs<\/strong> la Curtea Suprema de Justitie, inregistrata cu nr. 1173 .<br \/>\n(10) La data de 28 iunie 2006 <strong>Curtea Suprema de Justitie a respins cererea de recurs<\/strong> declarata de catre petitionar, mentinind hotarirea contestata. Este de mentionat faptul ca decizia Curtii Supreme de Justitie a RM dubleaza temeiurile de refuz a cererii ca si instanta de fond.<br \/>\nDecizia Curtii Supreme de Justitie este irevocabila din momentul pronuntarii.<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>A II-a cerere<\/strong> inaintata impotriva Rep.Moldova<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>EXPUNEREA FAPTELOR<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(&#8230;) (4) Conform legislatiei Republicii Moldova (Legea cu privire la organizarea si desfasurarea intrunirilor si Codul de Contraventii Administrative) mitingurile sunt legale daca sunt pasnice si au fost anuntate sau autorizate de primarie. Cererea poate fi depusa atit de o persoana fizica cit si de o persoana juridica.<br \/>\n(5) La data de 30 august 2007 <strong>a fost depusa o cerere din partea Hyde Park<\/strong>, semnata de vicepresedintele acestei asociatii \u2013 A.Juraveli prin care <strong>a fost solicitata autorizarea unei intruniri de protest in fata Ministerului de Interne si a Procuraturii Generale<\/strong> pentru perioada de 4-11 septembrie 2007, <strong>in semn de protest fata de suprimarea de catre politie in aceeasi zi (30.08.07) a unei actiuni autorizate<\/strong>. Cererea a fost inregistrata la Primarie in aceeasi zi .<br \/>\n(6) La data de 4 septembrie, ora 9, intrucit <strong>Primaria n-a emis nici un fel de decizie despre aceasta actiune<\/strong> anuntata, pasnica, in virtutea Legii 560 pichetarea noastra a inceput conform declaratiei prealabile. Dar la ora 9,25 <strong>politia a suprimat manifestatia<\/strong>, cu pretext ca nu era autorizata.<br \/>\n(7) La CPs Centru, cele trei persoane retinute: Ghenadie si Oleg Brega, de asemenea Iurie turcanu au fost perchezitionati cu grave incalcari de la regulamentele in vigoare: fara a li se explica drepturile si obligatiile, fara martori, cu citirea, inventarierea in scris si chiar xerocopierea de acte personale, corespondenta privata, etc. Procesele verbale intocmite de un politist anonim (nu s-a prezentat nici cind i-au cerut asta) n-au fost ulterior atasate la dosarul transmis in judecata, ci au ramas la politistii din comisariat, care ar putea sa foloseasca in scopuri personale informatii confidentiale, obtinute fraudulos, care nu le apartin si la care n-ar trebui sa aiba acces.<br \/>\nMembrii si simpatizantii Hyde park retinuti au fost tinuti in captivitate 5 ore, doi dintre ei chiar inchisi in cusca cu gratii, apoi in camerele de izolare, iar Iurie turcanu a fost fotografiat pe toate partile lipit de zid, apoi a fost dus intr-un birou unde era intimidat, amenintat cu internarea la spitalul de psihiatrie si somat sa dea depozitii impotriva organizatorilor. A fost impus sa semneze acte pe care nu le putea citi in semiintuneric si fara ochelari.<br \/>\nNici unuia dintre ei nu ni li s-a permis sa telefoneze acasa, la serviciu sau un avocat.<br \/>\n(8) Au fost dusi la judecata dupa ce a trecut aproape de doua ori termenul maxim prevazut de lege. Acolo iarasi au fost tinuti in masina, la soare, inca aproape o ora. Abia in instanta au fost eliberati, la ora 15, de judecatorul I. turcanu, care a fixat o noua data pentru proces, 11 septembrie.<br \/>\n(8) La data de 21 septembrie 2007, <strong>judecatorul Ion turcan de la Judecatoria Centru mun. Chisinau i-a sanctionat pe fratii Brega ca organizatori la amenda in marime de 40 (patruzeci) unitati conventionale fiecare<\/strong>, in baza art. 174\/1 alin.2 CCA RM, iar Iurie turcanu ca participant cu 10 (zece) unitati conventionale .<br \/>\n(9) in termeni legali <strong>am depus recurs la Curtea de Apel<\/strong> Chisinau, care a examinat cazurile noastre pe 22 octombrie 2007. Completul de judecata : Iurie Melinteanu, presedintele sedintei, judecatori: Ghenadie Lisii si Vasile Grib au decis la 23.10.07 respingerea recursului ca nejustificat si mentinerea nemodificata a deciziei primei intante.<br \/>\n(10) Decizia Curtii de Apel Chisinau este irevocabila.<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>I-a cerere<\/strong> inaintata impotriva Rep.Moldova<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>EXPUNEREA FAPTELOR<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(&#8230;) (4) Conform legislatiei Republicii Moldova (Legea cu privire la organizarea si desfasurarea intrunirilor) cererea cu privire la desfasurarea unei intruniri se va depune in termen de cel putin 15 zile pina la momentul intrunirii. Cererea poate fi depusa atit de o persoana fizica cit si de o persoana juridica.<\/p>\n<p>(5) La data de 4 aprilie 2005 <strong>a fost depusa o cerere<\/strong> din partea ONG \u201eHyde Park\u201d, semnata de presedintele acestei asociatii \u2013 O.Brega prin care <strong>a fost solicitata autorizarea unei intruniri de protest in fata Ambasadei Romaniei in Moldova pentru data de 22 aprilie 2005<\/strong>, cererea a fost inregistrata la iesire cu nr. 94[3].<\/p>\n<p>(6) La data de 13 aprilie 2005 prin Dispozitia Primariei mun. Chisinau, cu nr.251-d[4], <strong>a fost dispusa respingerea cerereii de autorizare sub pretext ca in aceesi data circulatia transportului si cetatenilor pe str. Bucuresti va fi restrictiva <\/strong>in legatura cu asigurarea protectiei participantilor la reuniunea GUUAM.<\/p>\n<p>(7) Avind in vedere ca motivele refuzului erau formale si neintemeiate in opinia noastra, <strong>am depus un demers la Primaria mun. Chisinau, prin care am solicitat anularea dispozitiei Primariei<\/strong> mun. Chisinau din 13.04.2005. <strong>Acest demers a fost respins<\/strong> la data de 29.04.2005 prin scrisoarea nr.118\/2055[5].<\/p>\n<p>(8) Primind raspunsul Primariei si considerind ca aceasta dispozitie este una ilegala <strong>am inaintat o cerere de chemare in judecata<\/strong> la data de 28 aprilie 2005, prin care am solicitat anularea dispozitiei si incasarea prejudiciilor morale, deoarece nu ne-a fost autorizata intrunirea[6].<\/p>\n<p>(9) La data de 14 iunie 2005, <strong>Curtea de Apel Chisinau, care a examinat cererea depusa a respins-o integral ca fiind neintemeiata<\/strong>[7]. Instanta de apel a ajuns la concluzia ca la data de 22.04.2005 a avut loc adunarea GUUAM si respectiv circulatia era restrictionata, din care motive primaria corect a respins cererea de autorizare. Istanta nu a administrat nici un fel de probe in acest sens invocind numai opinia reprezentantului piritului, desi am solicitat prezentarea de probe.<\/p>\n<p>(10) La data de 08.07.2005, <strong>am depus o cerere de recurs<\/strong> la Curtea Suprema de Justitie, inregistrata cu nr.3785[8]. Cererea respectiva a fost examinata de Curtea Suprema de Justitie, care la data de 03 august 2005 a respins cererea de recurs, mentinind Hotarirea primei instante. Instanta de recurs nu s-a expus asupra recursului reclamantului in ceea ce priveste probele invocate de ultimul si anume asupra faptului ca la data de 22.04.2005 au mai avut loc si alte intruniri, cum ar fi intrunirile organizate de miscari care simpatizeaza pe liderul comunist V.I. Lenin[9], insa care nu au fost interzise de Primaria Chisinau.<\/p>\n<p>(11) Decizia Curtii Supreme de Justitie este irevocabila din momentul pronuntarii.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n<em>[1] Copia statutului se anexeaza; [2] Copia certificatului de inregistrare se anexeaza; [3] Copia cererii se anexeaza; [4] Copia dispozitiei se anexeaza; [5] Copia raspunsului la demers se anexeaza; [6] Copia cererii de chemare in judecata se anexeaza; [7] Copia Hotaririi se anexeaza; [8] Copia recursului se anexeaza; [9] la data de 22 aprilie miscarile respective au marcat ziua de nastere a lui V. I. Lenin.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Ombudsmanul European<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">&gt;&gt;&gt; <\/span><\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int\/form\/ro\/form2.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Formular de plangere<\/a> <strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">&lt;&lt;&lt;<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/general.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Informatii generale]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/reports.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Rapoarte]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/decision.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Decizii]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/activit.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Activitati]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/legal.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Baza juridica]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/resource.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Resurse]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/links.htm\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Legaturi]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.curaj.net\/wp-admin\/other.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Diverse]<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"mailto:euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-size: x-small; font-family: Helvetica;\">[Trimite un e-mail]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>__________________________ [VIDEO] Hyde Park la CEDO CEDO recunoa\u015fte c\u0103 ne-au fost \u00eenc\u0103lcate drepturile \u00een anii 2004 &#8211; 2006 April 1 st, 2009 Asocia\u0163ia civic\u0103 Hyde Park invit\u0103 la o conferin\u0163\u0103 de pres\u0103 March 31st, 2009 Victorii importante la CEDO! HP vs MD (1,2,3) March 31st, 2009 Ast\u0103zi la amiaz\u0103 vom avea trei hot\u0103r\u00e2ri importante de [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":387,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3500"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3500"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3500\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4647,"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3500\/revisions\/4647"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/387"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sergiubrega.com\/curajnet\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3500"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}