CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 11 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59794/18 Andrei NĂSTASE against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the invalidation of mayoral election results in Chişinău that had shown a clear victory for the applicant, a candidate of the opposition. The invalidation was ordered by a court on the grounds that the applicant had addressed voters on Facebook on the election day calling on them to go and vote. The applicant’s appeal to the voters was interpreted by the domestic courts as an act of campaigning during a period when campaigning was forbidden by law (the period of silence). The courts considered that the breach of the electoral legislation by the applicant had been serious enough to have had a significant impact on the final outcome of the elections, given the important number of shares and likes received by the applicant’s Facebook live broadcasts and the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates in the elections. The applicant challenged the decision arguing, inter alia , that it had been politically motivated and that it had infringed his right to freedom of expression. However, the decision was confirmed by the hierarchically superior courts. The applicant complains before the Court that his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention had been violated.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?