Case: case_278

Atomic Facts:
[{"fact_id": "F001", "text": "The applicant, Genderdoc-M, is a non-governmental organisation based in Moldova.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F002", "text": "The applicant, Genderdoc-M, has as its object to provide information and to assist the LGBT community.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F003", "text": "On 7 April 2005, the applicant association applied to Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F004", "text": "The peaceful demonstration for which the applicant association sought authorisation was to be held in front of the Parliament on 27 May 2005.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F005", "text": "The purpose of the proposed demonstration was to encourage the adoption of laws to protect sexual minorities from discrimination.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F006", "text": "On 27 April 2005, the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the applicant association's application to hold a demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F007", "text": "The Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the application on the ground that the applicant association's demonstration was baseless.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F008", "text": "The Chişinău Municipal Council stated as justification that a law on the protection of national minorities had already been adopted.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F009", "text": "On 6 May 2005, the Chişinău Mayor's Office refused permission for the proposed demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F010", "text": "The Chişinău Mayor's Office refused permission on the ground that a law on the protection of national minorities was already in place.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F011", "text": "The Chişinău Mayor's Office also refused permission on the ground that there were legal provisions which dictated which individuals had the power of legislative initiative required to promote laws.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F012", "text": "The applicant association contested the decision of the Chişinău Mayor's Office of 6 May 2005.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F013", "text": "The applicant association argued that the ban on their demonstration was illegal.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F014", "text": "The applicant association argued that the ban on their demonstration was discriminatory.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F015", "text": "On 2 June 2005, the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant association's action.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F016", "text": "On 2 June 2005, the Chişinău Court of Appeal declared the Chişinău Mayor's Office decision of 6 May 2005 void.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F017", "text": "The Chişinău Court of Appeal found that the arguments relied on by the Chişinău Mayor's Office to justify its refusal to authorise the assembly were legally ungrounded, as the law does not provide such grounds for the non-authorisation of an assembly.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F018", "text": "The Chişinău Court of Appeal found that the decision as to whether to authorise or not to authorise an assembly should not be made conditional on the nature of the problems the participants intend to bring to society's attention.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F019", "text": "The Chişinău Court of Appeal found that the decision as to whether to authorise or not to authorise an assembly should not be made conditional on the status of those problems.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F020", "text": "The Chişinău Court of Appeal concluded that the Chişinău Mayor's Office decision of 6 May 2005 was issued contrary to the provisions of Article 26(1) of the Law regarding administrative complaints, and was thus illegal and void.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F021", "text": "The Chişinău Court of Appeal declared ill-founded the applicant association's complaint regarding the Chişinău Mayor's Office's non-compliance with the time-limit of forty-eight hours for notification of the refusal of authorisation for the assembly required under section 14 of the Law regarding the organisation and conduct of assemblies.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F022", "text": "The Chişinău Mayor's Office appealed against the decision of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 2 June 2005.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F023", "text": "The Chişinău Mayor's Office argued that they had received many requests from individuals and associations which were vehemently against the authorisation of the demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F024", "text": "The individuals and associations who sent requests to the Chişinău Mayor's Office opposed the adoption of any law legalising homosexual partnerships.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F025", "text": "The requests received by the Chişinău Mayor's Office laid emphasis on various legal provisions that concerned the protection of marriage and the family.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F026", "text": "On 7 September 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice of Moldova allowed the appeal lodged by the Chişinău Mayor's Office.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F027", "text": "On 7 September 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice of Moldova quashed the Chişinău Court of Appeal decision of 2 June 2005.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F028", "text": "On 7 September 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice of Moldova decided to send the case to the Chişinău Court of Appeal for re-examination.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F029", "text": "In their submissions to the Chişinău Court of Appeal on re-examination, the Chişinău Mayor's Office argued that the holding of an assembly for the promotion of the rights of sexual minorities would endanger public order.", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F030", "text": "In their submissions to the Chişinău Court of Appeal on re-examination, the Chişinău Mayor's Office argued that the holding of an assembly for the promotion of the rights of sexual minorities would endanger social morality.", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fac

Fact Mapping:
{"list1": {"scope": ["F001", "F003", "F004", "F005", "F006", "F009"], "interference": ["F006", "F009", "F036"], "prescribed_by_law": [], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": []}, "list2": {"scope": ["F003", "F004", "F005"], "interference": ["F006", "F009", "F036"], "prescribed_by_law": [], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": []}, "list3": ["F003", "F005", "F009", "F036"]}

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": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "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": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}}}