Communicated on 18 December 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 29458/15
A.O. FALUN DAFA and others
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 18 May 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The first two applicants were two organisations registered in Moldova at the time of the events which practiced Falun Gong, a spiritual practice forbidden in China. The international symbol of the organisations and the symbol registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova was a reversed red swastika. The third and the fourth applicants were the first two applicants’ president and founder. On two different dates a non‑governmental organisation initiated court proceedings against the Ministry of Justice and the applicant organisations seeking the ban of their symbol and their dissolution on the ground that they had a swastika as a symbol and that they propagated hatred and social unrest. The applicants opposed arguing that their symbol was not a Nazi swastika and that it had been registered in over eighty countries around the world. They also denied the accusations to their address and relied on Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. In two judgments of 28 January and 11 February 2015 the Supreme Court of Justice finally upheld the actions against the Ministry of Justice and the applicant organisations, banned their symbol and ordered their dissolution.
The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention that the banning of their symbol and their dissolution breached their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and their right to freedom of association. They also complained that one of the judges who examined their case at the Supreme Court of Justice had participated in similar previous proceedings against the applicant organisations and that, therefore, he was not impartial.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of thought, conscience or religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Firstname LASTNAME
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
Representative
1.
A.O. FALUN DAFA
2009
Moldovan
Chişinău
V. Gribincea
2.
A.O. QIGONG FALUN GONG MOLDOVA
2011
Moldovan
Chişinău
V. Gribincea
3.
Tatiana CHIRIAC
1970
Moldovan, Romanian
Chişinău
V. Gribincea
4.
Dumitru ROMAN
1965
Moldovan, Romanian
Ciorescu
V. Gribincea
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy