Communicated on 18 December 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 17900/14 A.O. FALUN DAFA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 February 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was an organisation registered in Moldova at the time of the events which practiced Falun Gong, a spiritual practice forbidden in China. In 2010 it planned organising two concerts of Chinese music and dance with the participation of a group of artists from the United States of America. For that purpose it rented a hall from the National Theatre of Opera and Ballet in Chişinău , concluded contracts with the artists and sold over eight hundred tickets. Following a meeting between the Chinese ambassador to Chişinău and representatives of the Moldovan authorities, the Government wrote several letters to the director of the National Theatre in which it was demanded that the concerts be cancelled. The reason invoked was the preservation of good diplomatic relations with the Popular Republic of China. On the day of the concerts, the entrance in the National Theatre was blocked by the police and the concerts were cancelled. The applicant initiated proceedings against the National Theatre and the Government claiming, inter alia , a breach of its rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 and claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 14 August 2013 by which the National Theatre was obliged to pay the applicant a very small fraction of the pecuniary damage claimed without any acknowledgement of a breach of the applicant ’ s Convention rights.

The applicant organisation complains that its rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly as guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were breached by the actions of the domestic authorities and that the national courts failed to remedy those breaches.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression and/or assembly, within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 and Article 11 § 2?

2. The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.