CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30599/15 PARTIDUL POLITIC MISCAREA POPULARA ANTIMAFIE and Sergiu MOCANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 10 June 2015 communicated on 18 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the ban imposed on the applicants, a political party and its leader, to hold demonstrations in front of two privately-owned companies. In particular, in 2012 the second applicant held a press conference at which he expressed, on behalf of the first applicant, the intention to hold protest demonstrations in front of two privately-owned companies connected to a public official unless that public official and the Prime Minister complied with their requests. Shortly after, the two companies initiated court proceedings seeking to ban the applicants from holding any demonstrations in front of their premises on the ground that such protests would disrupt their operations. In 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice finally upheld the request of the two companies and banned the applicants from holding any demonstrations in front of the two privately-owned buildings. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 10 and, in substance, under Article 11 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention ( Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015)?