DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BORREGO BORREGO

(Translation)

I regret that I am unable to agree with the reasoning of the majority of the Chamber .

In the present case we may distinguish, very briefly, between two aspects: an action and a reaction .

As regards the action, peaceful demonstrations took place during a period of eight days in front of the National Assembly building ( see par agraphs 19 and 33 of the judgment ), without complying with the formal requirements laid down in the Assemblies Act . Responsibility for these demonstrations must be attributed to the applicant political party ( see Refah Partisi ( t he Welfare Party ) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 115, ECHR 2003 -II ).

As regards the reaction of the Moldovan authorities , a one-month ban was imposed on the party concerned . Regard being had to the Convention, to the circumstances of the case and to the fact that local elections were about to take place, this temporary ban on a political party must be viewed as a measure that was not necessary in a democratic society .

However , despite all this, I consider that there was no violation of the Convention in the present case . Why ?

In my opinion, because there were two very important facts in this case to which the Court did not give proper consideration .

Firstly, in response to the letter sent by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Moldovan authorities under Article 52 of the Convention, the Minister of J ustice lifted the temporary ban on the party ' s activities ( see paragraph 25 of the judgment ).

As I understand it, the Convention forms a whole: A rticle 11 is part of it, as are Section II and A rticle 52. The purpose of the Convention, as a whole , is to protect human rights . The right guaranteed by A rticle 11 was respected as a result of the application of the measures provided for in A rticle 52, long before the Court ' s judgment was delivered .

Secondly, the temporary ban on the applicant party “ had not had any negative effects on the CDPP since it had not been enforced, the CDPP ' s accounts had not been frozen and the p arty could continue its activities unhindered ”, as the Supreme Court of Justice held ( see paragraph 28).

In short, I consider that, in so far as the temporary ban was lifted and was never enforced, there was no breach of the Convention in the present case .

[1] 1. See “ Comunicat cu ocazia desfasurarii Consiliului National Largit al Partidului Popular Crestin Democrat ”, http://www.ppcd.md/ro/press/42.htm

[2] 1. See L aw no. 718 , Privind partidele şi alte organizaţii social-politice , http://www.justice.md/lex/document_rom.php?id=B68D3A82:A381C43A

[3] 1. S ee the G uidelines on prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogous measures, http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2000/CDL-INF(2000)001-e.asp

[4] 1 . See Law no. 837, Cu privire la asociaţiile obşteşti , http://www.justice.md/lex/document_rom.php?id=7640AE7B:3577A0B0

[5] 2 . See the Internet newspaper Press obozrenie , “ Не молчи ”: в Молдове пройдет информационная кампания по правам человека , “… в рамках кампании гражданам будут раздаваться информационные материалы о правах человека, а также листовки с адресами и контактной информацией организаций, которые предоставляют бесплатные юридические услуги. Среди них числятся пять юридических учреждений при Государственном университете Молдовы, Центр по защите прав человека и неправительственные организации ‘Юристы за права человека’, ‘Институт уголовных реформ’, Комитет Хельсинки в Молдове, ‘ LADOM ’ и ‘ Promo - lex ’ . . .. ” , http :// press . try . md / view . php ? id =67252& iddb = Society