CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 30 March 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43038/13 Anatol MĂTĂSARU and Djulieta SAVIȚCHI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 10 June 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the first applicant’s detention on three occasions for periods comprised between 5 and 9 hours as a result of his peaceful protest in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s Office. The second applicant was detained on one occasion in similar circumstances. Both applicants were charged with insulting the police and resisting arrest but were subsequently acquitted by the courts which found the charges unfounded. After acquittal both applicants initiated civil proceedings against the State before the domestic courts claiming compensation for the breach of their rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention. The Supreme Court of Justice found a breach of Articles   5 and 11 and awarded the first applicant the equivalent of some 900   euros (EUR) and some EUR   270 to the second applicant. The applicants complain that the amounts were not sufficient for them to lose their victim status under Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Bearing in mind the decisions of the domestic courts and the awards of compensation granted to the applicants, can they still claim to be victims of a breach of Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention?   2.     If so, has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their arrest and detention on 29 January 2008, 18 December 2008 and 29 January 2009?   3.     Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their detention in contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article   11 of the Convention?