Case: case_537

Atomic Facts:
[{"fact_id": "F001", "text": "The first applicant was born in 1951.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F002", "text": "The first applicant lives in Erjovo.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F003", "text": "The second applicant is a company incorporated in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F004", "text": "The applicants were represented by Mr S.G. Popovschi, a lawyer practising in Tiraspol.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F005", "text": "The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F006", "text": "The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII).", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F007", "text": "The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F008", "text": "On 6 November 2012, the former members of the kolkhoz Rodina from Erjovo and Sarateia villages created the second applicant (a company incorporated in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova).", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F009", "text": "The second applicant was created with a view to defending the interests of the former members of the kolkhoz Rodina in respect of plans by the Government of the Transdniestrian region of Moldova concerning their land.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F010", "text": "On 21 September 2013, the first applicant organised a public meeting for the former members of the kolkhoz Rodina.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F011", "text": "The public meeting organised by the first applicant on 21 September 2013 was held with a view to discussing the matter about the land.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F012", "text": "Sixty-five persons participated in the public meeting organised by the first applicant on 21 September 2013.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F013", "text": "On 23 September 2013, the Rîbniţa District Court imposed a fine of 145 MRT roubles on the first applicant.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F014", "text": "The Rîbniţa District Court imposed the fine on the first applicant for breach of the rules of conducting public manifestations.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F015", "text": "The Rîbniţa District Court found that the first applicant had not obtained a prior authorisation for holding the public manifestation on 21 September 2013.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F016", "text": "The first applicant challenged the Rîbniţa District Court's decision of 23 September 2013 before the MRT (Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic) Supreme Court.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F017", "text": "On 31 October 2013, the MRT (Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic) Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant's appeal.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F018", "text": "On 31 October 2013, the MRT (Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic) Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Rîbniţa District Court imposing a fine of 145 MRT roubles on the first applicant.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F019", "text": "Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016).", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK"]}]

Fact Mapping:
{"list1": {"scope": ["F010", "F011", "F012", "F013", "F014", "F015"], "interference": ["F010", "F013", "F014", "F015", "F016", "F017", "F018"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F019"], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": ["F006", "F007", "F019"]}, "list2": {"scope": ["F010", "F012"], "interference": ["F010", "F013", "F014"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F019"], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": ["F019"]}, "list3": ["F010", "F013", "F014", "F019"]}

Conclusion:
{"violated": true, "elements": {"scope": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_assembly_exists": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_participation": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_peaceful": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "interference": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "explicit"}, "prescribed_by_law": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "explicit"}, "prescribed_by_law_foreseeable": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "prescribed_by_law_accessible": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "prescribed_by_law_safeguards": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "legitimate_aim": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed", "aims": []}, "necessity": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "positive_obligation": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "explicit"}}}