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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40235/15 GENDERDOC-M against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 5 August 2015 communicated on 18 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged discrimination against the applicant association in comparison with other associations due to the fact that it promoted the interests of the gay community in Moldova. In particular, in 2013 the Chișinău municipality sought and obtained in court the ban of a peaceful assembly organised by the applicant company in the main square of the capital and an authorisation for the same event in another location because two counter-demonstrations were announced for the main square. The applicant association initiated court proceedings under Law no. 121/2013 on ensuring equality against the mayor and the municipality seeking the acknowledgement of direct discrimination and incitement to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and, in particular, that the mayor made explicit discriminatory statements and chose to change the location of the applicant’s event but not the location of the counter-demonstrations. The claims were finally rejected on 18   March 2015 on the ground that the change in the location of the event had been lawfully authorised by a final court judgment in 2013. The applicant association complains of a violation of its rights under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant association suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 11 ( Berkman v. Russia , no. 46712/15, §§ 45-48, 1   December 2020; Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania , no.   19237/16, §§ 137-41, 1 June 2021)?   2.     Did the applicant association have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint concerning discrimination, as required by Article   13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention?