To Review The Constitutionality Of Provisions Of Article 1 Of Law No. 54 Of 21 February 2003 On Counteracting Extremist Activity (Use Of Nazi Symbols) (Notification No. 29/2015)

Original Language Title: pentru controlul constituţionalităţii unor prevederi ale articolului 1 din Legea nr. 54 din 21 februarie 2003 privind contracararea activității extremiste (utilizarea simbolurilor naziste) (Sesizarea nr. 29a/2015)

Read the untranslated law here: http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=364010

Control
constitutionality of certain provisions of Article 1 of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity

(Use of Nazi symbols) (Notification no. 29/2015)


Posted: 01/04/2016
in the Official Gazette

Nr. 79-89
Article No. 23
Effective Date: 11/23/2015

On behalf of the Republic
Constitutional Court, sitting in composition:
Mr. Alexandru Tanase, President, Mr. Aurel
BĂIEŞU, Mr. Igor
DOLEA, Mr. Tudor Panţiru
, || | Mr. Victor POPA, judges,
in which Mr Teodor Papuc, Registrar,
Considering the complaint filed on June 29, 2015 and registered on the same date
,
examining the notification referred to in plenary public
Considering documents and materials,
deliberated in plenary closed
Delivers the following judgment: PROCEDURE

1. The case originated notification is submitted to the Constitutional Court on 29 June 2015 by Mr Stefan Creanga, deputy of the Moldovan Parliament, under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, 25 lit. g) of the Law on Constitutional Court, paragraph 38. (1) g) and 39 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Code, to review the constitutionality of the phrase "a symbolic attributes or similar to confusion" in item 1 letter b) of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity.
2. The author claims that the phrase disputed referral, which provides for a prohibition similar attributes or symbols, to be confounded with Nazi symbolism, breach of Articles 31, 32 and 54 of the Constitution.
March. By the Constitutional Court decision of 6 October 2015, the complaint was admissible, without prejudging the merits.
4. In examining the notification, the Constitutional Court requested opinions Moldovan President, Parliament and Government.
May. Author of the notification, Mr Stefan Creanga, was represented at the public hearing of the Court by Mr Dumitru Roman. Parliament was represented by Mr Valeriu Kuciuk. The government was represented by Mr Eduard Serbenco, deputy minister of justice.

THE FACTS 6. On 21 February 2003, the Moldovan Parliament adopted the Law no. 54 on Counteracting Extremist Activity, which defined the concepts and principles with reference to extremist activity and established in the applicable legal mechanism to fight this phenomenon.
July. Article 1 of Law no. 54 on Counteracting Extremist Activity defines extremist activity and its forms, among them being found and propagation and public display of logos or attributes nazi attributes or symbology similar to confusion with nazi attributes or symbols [lit . b)].
August. Article 2 letter a) of Law no. 54 establishes principles combating extremist activity. Among these the recognition, observance and defense of human rights and freedoms and legitimate interests of organizations.
September. Under Article 6 of the Law, in Moldova prohibit the establishment and activity of public and religious associations, and other organizations whose aims or actions that involve extremist activity. Assign materials to the extremist nature is decided by the court decision. Under the judgment, the Ministry of Justice, by order, include material in the Register of extremist materials.

10. In this respect, the case law presented by the author of the notification proving the existence of solutions to the contrary on the same object. By Buiucani Court judgment no. 3 CA-2409/08 of 5 August 2008, was ordered inclusion in the register of materials of extremist nature of the material on which was printed a particular symbol (symbol Falun). On the other hand, by Decision no. 2 - 284/10 of 17 February 2010 and completion of 30 October 2008 Buiucani judge has ordered the exclusion from the Register of materials of extremist nature of the material on which was printed the same symbol. Then the Supreme Court of Justice nr. 2rac-1/15 of 28 January 2015 has again decided to include the symbol in the register of extremist materials (Minister of Justice Order no. 416 of 25 September 2008, published in Official Gazette no. 180-181 of 3 October 2008, Ministerial Order justice no. 8 of 17 January 2011, published in Official Gazette no. 18-21 of 28 January 2011 that canceled the first, and the Minister of justice Order no. 56 of 24 February 2015 published in the Official Gazette no. 52-57 6 March 2015).

THE RELEVANT LAWS.
11 national legislation. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (OJ 1994, no. 1) are:

Article 23Dreptul everybody to know their rights and duties

"[...]
(2) The State shall ensure the right of everybody to know his rights and duties. For this purpose the State shall publish and make accessible all laws and other normative acts. "

Article 32Libertatea opinion and expression

"(1) Every citizen is guaranteed freedom of thought, opinion and freedom of expression in public through words, images or any other means possible.
(2) Freedom of expression may not harm the honor, dignity or the rights of others to express their own opinions.
(3) There are prohibited and punishable by law denying and slandering the state and the people, sedition, war, aggression, ethnic, racial or religious hatred, incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, public violence, or other actions threatening the constitutional order. "
Article 40Libertatea meetings


"Rallies, demonstrations, processions or any other assemblies are free and may be organized and held only peacefully, without any arms."

Article 54Restrângerea exercise of certain rights or freedoms

"(1) In the Republic of Moldova can not adopt laws that would suppress or weaken fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
(2) The exercise of rights and freedoms can not be subjected to any restrictions other than those prescribed by law and which meet generally accepted principles of international law and are necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, economic welfare, public order, to prevent mass riots and crimes, protecting the rights, freedoms and dignity of others, preventing disclosure of confidential information or guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[...]
(4) The restriction must be proportionate to the situation that caused it and can not touch the existence of the right or freedom. "
12. The relevant provisions of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity (OJ 2003, no. 56-58, art. 245) are:
Article 1Noţiuni main


"Under the present law, the terms below have the following meanings:
[...]
extremist activity:
[...]
b) propagation and public logos or attributes nazi or symbolic attributes similar to confusion with Nazi attributes or symbols;
[...] "

Article 2Principiile basic combating extremist activity

"Counteracting Extremist Activity is based on the following principles:
a) the recognition, observance and defense of human rights and freedoms and legitimate interests of organizations;
[...] "

Article 6Răspunderea public or religious association or other organization
for extremist activity

"(1) The Republic of Moldova prohibit the establishment and activity of public and religious associations, and other organizations whose aims or actions that involve extremist activity.

(2) Where the work of public associations or religious or other organization, including the activity of at least one regional divisions or other subdivision of its actions denoting extremism is detected, it is seised / warned in writing about the inadmissibility of extremist activity, indicating concrete reasons for the notification / warning, including breaches committed. Where possible taking measures to remove the committed violations in referral / warning will indicate also the deadline for their removal, which will be one month from the date of notification / warning.
(3) The notification / warning the public or religious association or other organization is made by the Attorney General or his subordinate prosecutors or the Ministry of Justice or the State Agency for Religious Affairs.
(4) The notification / warning may be challenged, as established in court.
(5) If the complaint / warning has not been challenged in court, as established, or have been declared illegal by the court, and if, by the deadline, the respective public or religious association or organization or a territorial subdivision another subdivision has not removed the irregularities which served as grounds for referral / warning or if in the course of 12 months from the date of notification / warning were discovered new actions denoting the existence of signs of extremism in under the request of the Prosecutor General or prosecutors subordinated to him, the Ministry of Justice or the State Agency for religious Affairs, the court takes a decision on the cessation or suspension for a period of up to one year of the activity of public associations or religious or other organizations.
(6) If the court ruled, on the basis of the present law, the decision on cessation of activity of public associations or religious or other organization, activity or other subdivisions subdivisions thereof, It will also be terminated or suspended. "

Article 10Registrul extremist materials

"(1) The Ministry of Justice keeps a record of materials of extremist nature.
(2) A copy of a final court decision declaring as having extremist material information is sent to the Ministry of Justice which, by order, include material indicated in the court decision in the record of materials of extremist nature.
(3) order concerning the material in the record of materials of extremist nature shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova and republican mass media.
(4) order concerning the material in the record of materials of extremist nature may be appealed in the manner provided in court.
(5) broadcasting in Moldova materials included in the record of materials of extremist nature is prohibited.
(6) Persons responsible for the preparation, dissemination or illegal storage purpose of subsequent dissemination of the aforementioned materials are drawn from administrative or criminal law. "
B.
13 international acts. The relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in New York on 10 December 1948 and ratified by the Parliament of Moldova no. 217 of 28 July 1990) are:
Article 19


Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. "
14. The relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 and ratified by the Parliament of Moldova no. 1298 of 24 July 1997) are:
Article 10Libertatea expression


"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom of opinion and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises to authorization.

2. The execution of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, national security, territorial integrity or public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of confidential information or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. "

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association, including the right to form unions with others and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. The exercise of these rights shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, national security, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others. This article does not prohibit legal restrictions to be imposed on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, police and state administration. "

THE LAW 15. From the content of the notification, the Court observes that the challenged rule aimed essentially ban the use of symbols or attributes similar to confusion with Nazi symbols.
16. Thus, the notification relates to constitutional elements and principles such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association by public use of certain attributes and distinctive symbols.
A.
ADMISSIBILITY 17. In accordance with its decision of 6 October 2015, the Court held that under Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution, Article 4 para. (1) a) of the Law on Constitutional Court and Article 4 para. (1) a) of the Code of constitutional jurisdiction, notification on the constitutionality of laws within the competence of the Constitutional Court.
18. Articles 25 letter g) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and 38 para. (1) g) of the Code of Constitutional MP confers the right to petition the Constitutional Court.
19. The Court emphasizes that the power has been vested with by Article 135 para. (1) a) of the Constitution requires the establishment of the legal norms and the Constitution, taking into account the principle of supremacy it.
20. The Court notes that the subject of constitutional review is the phrase "the symbolic attributes or similar to confusion" in item 1 letter b) of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity.
21. The Court observes that the disputed rule previously subject to constitutional review.
22. The Court notes that the notification can not be dismissed as inadmissible and there is no basis to stop the process, in accordance with Article 60 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Code.
23. Therefore, the Court will examine the contested rules under Articles 32 and 40 of the Constitution, provided the quality relative to the law, resulting from Article 23 para. (2) in conjunction with Article 54 of the Constitution.
B. MERITS OF THE CASE
alleged infringement of Articles 32 and 40 combined with Articles 23 and 54 of the Constitution
24. According to the author of the notification, the contested rule contravenes Article 32 of the Constitution, which provides:
"(1) Every citizen is guaranteed freedom of thought, opinion and freedom of expression in public through words, images or any other means possible.
[...] "
25. Also, challenged the norm to be considered in the light of Article 40 of the Constitution, which states:
"Rallies, demonstrations, processions or any other assemblies are free and may be organized and held only peacefully, without any sort of weapon. "
26. Meanwhile, the examination quality standard law, the Court will apply the provisions of Article 23 para. (2) of the Constitution:
"[...]
(2) The State shall ensure the right of everybody to know his rights and duties. For this purpose the State shall publish and make accessible all laws and other normative acts. "
27. Also subject to constitutional control rule will be examined in the light of Article 54 of the Constitution, which provides:

"(1) In the Republic of Moldova can not adopt laws that would suppress or weaken fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen.
(2) The exercise of rights and freedoms can not be subjected to any restrictions other than those prescribed by law and which meet generally accepted principles of international law and are necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, economic welfare, public order, to prevent mass riots and crimes, protecting the rights, freedoms and dignity of others, preventing disclosure of confidential information or guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[...] "
1. Arguments author
28 referral. The author claims that the referral to the phrase "a symbolic attributes or similar to confusion" prescribed by art. 1 letter b) of Law No. 54 on counteracting extremist activity violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly by establishing, ambiguously, some limitations on the exercise of these freedoms.
29. The author believes that the wording of the notification in question is not sufficiently clear and predictable.
30. Consequently, given the lack of clarity and predictability, there may be unjustified limitations for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. So the author of the notification considers that the restrictions set by the contested phrase of art. 1 letter b) of Law no. 54 on counteracting extremist activities do not fall within Article 54 of the Constitution.
2. Arguments authorities
31. In his opinion, the President of Moldova said that the duty of Parliament passing laws discretion includes the right situations requiring statutory regulation and decision on the appropriateness of adopting legislative acts, the effects of which will carry on the general public's interest. According to this view, dissemination and public use of attributes or symbols resembling Nazi symbol is not a violation of freedom of association and expression. These freedoms are not absolute. The legislator has a wide margin of appreciation in this regard, and any interference with freedoms set forth by displaying symbols in public that may be confused with the Nazi justified by the specific historical context and association with totalitarian Nazi offensive a large part of Moldovan citizens. Use of totalitarian symbols mentioned is a reflection of their political extremist Nazi regime. Moldovan President states that the contested law meets all quality.
32. In his view, Parliament considers that the legal provisions at issue are sufficiently clear, accessible and predictable. Also, the mere use of symbolism without propaganda purposes, can not be described as extremist activity.
33. According to the Government, the phrase contested by the author of the notification is sufficiently clear and predictable, being necessary in a democratic society to counter the attempts of revival of Nazi ideology, to ensure public order, respect the honor and dignity of persons who have suffered the consequences of the Nazi regime . However, the opinion stresses that the relevant legislation provides that extremist activity propagation and public means of symbols similar to confusion with those of the Nazi regime, and not simply using them without making any propaganda.
March. The Court's assessment
34. The Court observes that the challenged rule aimed at limiting the freedom of association of organizations that use "or symbolic attributes similar to confusion with Nazi attributes or symbols". Since the use of these attributes or symbols tantamount to expressing an opinion in the form of symbolic speech, the ban directly aimed at freedom of expression. Therefore, freedom of association is affected indirectly by limiting freedom of expression.
35. Given the similarity of the facts and law in the present case the Court will follow the same line of thinking as the Decision no. 12 of June 4, 2013 to review the constitutionality of provisions on banning communist symbols and the promotion of totalitarian ideologies.
3.1.
General principles 3.1.1. International practice and standards condemning totalitarian regimes

36. Resolution no.213 (2009) European Parliament resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism expressed sharp condemnation of all totalitarian and undemocratic regimes, but does not address the use of their symbolism.
37. In June-July 2009 at the session of the 18 th Assembly, the OSCE adopted the Vilnius Declaration, which stated that "the twentieth century European countries went through two totalitarian regimes - Nazism and Stalinism, which caused acts genocide, violation of human rights and freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity ", the participating States of the OSCE were urged" to oppose uniformly all totalitarian regimes, regardless of past ideological that would have them, " and condemn the "glorification of totalitarian regimes, including public demonstrations glorifying the Nazi and Stalinist past."
38. On 18 December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution against glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to the development of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance of this kind. The UN resolution condemns all propaganda and all organizations based on ideas of superiority of a nation and justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination.
39. In some European countries there is consensus on the fact that totalitarian regimes have committed massive human rights violations being taken in this respect laws banning them.
40. Czechoslovakia in 1991, the Criminal Code imposed criminal penalties to people "supporting and promoting movements aimed at suppressing the rights and freedoms of demonstration or spreading enmity citizen national, racial, class or religious.". The Czech Constitutional Court said that rule unconstitutional because "interdict the support or promotion of fascism or communism would be incompatible with the principle of regulation specification of the criminal law" as "a case of such a movement fascist or communist would not be defined properly. "
41. In 2000, under the Criminal Code has criminalized the use of both Hungarian fascist, communist and those, such as sickle, hammer and red star. Hearing the case in the same year, the Constitutional Court of Hungary declared constitutional prohibition because "these symbols (hammer, sickle and red star) are one-way, fixed for residents of Hungary, that they were linked to communist ideology and regime communist and communist ideology that was an ideology of hatred and aggression; and accordingly that the symbols were symbols of the dictatorship. "
42. Subsequently, the European Court in 2008, Hungary was sentenced for violation of freedom of expression because Vajnai vs. Hungary in connection with the criminal conviction of a party member for application to coat a communist symbol during a public event. Having determined that the only reliable information underlying conviction are also ways of exercising freedom of expression, the European Court found that there was interference. The European Court, even if the interference by national authorities applicants' right to freedom of expression could be justified by trying to protect public order, criminal sanctions interested persons, ie almost four years in prison, were manifestly disproportionate in nature and by their gravity in relation to the legitimate aim pursued by condemning them. The European Court established that the domestic courts went beyond what would constitute a restriction of freedom of speech required of the applicants.
43. In November 2011, the European Court found another violation of Article 10 of the Convention, under this law, if Fratanolo vs. Hungary, which also concerned the public display of a red stars by a member of a left-wing party in Hungary.
44. On 19 February 2013, the Constitutional Court recognized unconstitutional ban of fascist and communist totalitarian regimes symbols, finding a violation of the principle of legal certainty and freedom of expression.
45. Based on this decision, in April 2013, the Hungarian Parliament passed a law in another editorial, operating technical changes to correspond with the principle of regulation specification.

46. In 2009 Poland introduced criminal penalties for the public promotion of fascist or totalitarian system. These regulations have been challenged in criminal Polish Constitutional Court, which in 2011 declared them unconstitutional. In substantiation of its judgment, the Court found that the provision of the Criminal Code does not meet the applicability of the rules of criminal law is formulated in an incorrect, imprecise and unclear, leading to violation of freedom of expression.
3.1.2. Limits restricting freedom of expression and association
47. Court stresses that freedom of expression constitutes one of the foundations of democratic society and a prerequisite for progress and individual fulfillment.
48. The Constitution guarantees every person, in Article 32, the right to freely express themselves in public through words, images or any other means possible.
49. The Court reiterates that freedom of expression is not an absolute right, being susceptible to limitation under Article 54 of the Constitution. Such limitations must be prescribed by law, must pursue a legitimate aim and must not affect the very existence of freedom of expression.
50. Freedom of expression may be subject to limitations based on the provisions of Article 32 paragraph necessitated. (2) and (3) of the Constitution. In this sense, constitutional rule provides that freedom of expression may not harm the honor, dignity or person's right to their own opinions. Also, the constitutional provision allows public authorities to prohibit and punish by law the actions of contestation and defamation of the State and the people, sedition, war, aggression, ethnic, racial or religious hatred, incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, public violence and other actions threatening constitutional order.
51. In its case the European Court found that although freedom of expression may be subject to exceptions they "must be narrowly construed," and "necessary restrictions have argued convincingly" (see Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom from November 26, 1991, § 59, series A no. 216).
52. Also, the European Court established that measures restricting freedom of expression, other than those applied in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles - however shocking and unacceptable may seem to some opinii- authorities actually do not serve democracy and more or even may endanger (Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, 23 October 2008, § 45; Alekseyev v. Russia, 21 October 2010, § 80).
53. In the same vein, according to art. 11 of the European Convention, and freedom of assembly or association may be subject to restrictions necessary for national security, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, to the extent that these limitations to not affect the very existence of law.
3.1.3. 54
quality of the law. The Court points out that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Constitution, constitutional rights and freedoms are interpreted and applied in accordance with the covenants and treaties to which Moldova is party.
55. In this respect, the provisions of Articles 23 para. (2) and 54 of the Constitution, the state publish and make accessible all laws and the exercise of the rights and freedoms should not be subject to any restrictions other than those prescribed by law and must be interpreted according to criteria imposed by the European Court.
56. The concept of "law" is an autonomous concept (Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland, Grand Chamber judgment of 30 June 2005, § 143). This notion assumes no arbitrariness and lack of arbitrariness is an essential element of the Rule of Law, mentioned in the Preamble of the European Convention, and the rule of law, mentioned in Article 1, para. (3) of the Constitution.
57. The concept of "law" may contain sources of primary or delegated legislation as a state and judgments (Kafkaris v. Cyprus, Grand Chamber judgment of 12 February 2008, § 118-121). It does not include "state practice" inconsistent with the written law of the Member or by court decisions and international obligations of states as regards human rights (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany, Grand Chamber judgment of 22 March 2001, § 91) .

58. To determine the character of "law" within the meaning of the Convention and the Constitution of a rule of law, we have conducted a test of 'adequacy' it to verify whether the rule of law is accessible, clear and predictable if warranted against abuse.
59. Provided accessibility requires that legal texts can be accessed by the applicant (Silver and Others v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983 § 87-88). If invoking rules that supplement text and language of a vast public primary and rules, then they must be accessed by the applicant. In the case of Silver and Others v. The United Kingdom (cited above) has recognized that restrictions on prisoners' correspondence imposed on the basis of orders and instructions unpublished, which complemented the legislation delegated relevant, they could not be used to determine the interference " prescribed by law ".
60. Provided sufficient precision and predictability of law requires the existence of detailed rules on the subject treated (Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, § 27). It requires a more rigorous analysis of the rule of law. The European Court ruled that the precision of domestic legislation "depends to a considerable extent the content of the instrument in question, the area that is meant to cover the number and status of those to whom it is addressed" (Chorherr v. Austria judgment of august 25, 1993, § 25). Test accuracy law requires that in cases where the law confers a certain margin of discretion, it should indicate with sufficient clarity its limits (Silver and Others v. The United Kingdom (§ 80). In Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (judgment of 20 June 2002 § 119-123) - a case that concerned the expulsion of a person on grounds of national security - the European Court held that "the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion which is conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give people adequate protection against arbitrary interference. "
61. a discretion that is not defined, even if subject to judicial review in formal terms, does not pass the test of foreseeability (Ostrovar v. Moldova, judgment of 13 September 2005, § 98 and § 105-108). the same applies for unlimited discretion of the courts.
3.2. Applying the principles to the present case
62. Referring to the phrase challenged, the Court held that restrictions on freedom of conscience and expression are provided in the context propagation and public demonstration of attributes / symbols that resemble, to be confounded with Nazi attributes or symbols.
63. The Court finds that the disputed norm is accessible to the general public, given that Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 was published in the Official Gazette no. 56-58 of 28 March 2003. The finding is motivated by the presumption of knowledge of the law, which stems from the general principle of law Nemo censetur ignore legem.
64. At the same time, the Court can not ignore that in the event of non Earl provision states, in Article 6 para. (6) of Law no. 54 of February 21, 2003 creates the possibility of delivery by the court of cessation or suspension of public associations or religious or other organization. That article is essentially a criminal sanction, under the Convention, given the nature, purpose and severity of the penalties provided for therein.
65. The Court points out that in criminal matters legislator must be extremely precise, clear and accurate, as it establishes the principle of nulla poena sine lege enshrined in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
66. Persons covered by criminal law rule must be able to establish the essential characteristics of prohibited act only on the basis that specific provisions, ie applying the simple rules of linguistic interpretation.

67. The Court observes that the entire editorial staff of art. 1 letter b) of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity is worded so vague and unclear, giving the courts a wide margin of discretion, which generates the existence of judicial decisions with different interpretations (see, to that effect § 10 of the judgment). In this circumstance it stems from the uncertainty of the legal situation of persons who - for various reasons - they want to use attributes or symbols that may be considered Nazi or the like.
68. Lack into law a comprehensive list of attributes and Nazi symbols and attributes and symbols which resemble they make available contested normative regulation lacks sufficient specificity.
69. Thus, the wording "attributes / symbols similar to confusion with Nazi attributes or symbols" created a state of uncertainty following aspects:
(1) lack of definitions or descriptions of the attributes and symbology Nazi law; (2) lack of delimitation of discretion on the "resemblance to confusion" with Nazi attributes or symbols.
70. The Court emphasizes that identifying "attributes and symbols similar to confusion with the Nazi" contrary to the principle prohibiting the analogy or interpretation extensive criminal if this is a disadvantage for the accused. Attributes or symbols can be determined arbitrarily ad casu.
71. Court resumes here those fixed by the European Court in Case Karademirci v. Turkey: "In the event of failure to conform to a formal procedure in order to exercise a certain form of expression lead to imposition of a sentence, Article 10 together with Article 7 the Convention requires that the law in question clearly define the circumstances that make applicable penalty and its scope should not be extended restrictions detriment of the defendant, by analogy "(§ 40).
72. As described, the Court holds that without precise indication in Article 1, letter b) of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 list or the notion that constitute attributes and Nazi symbols, its provisions are imprecise and unclear, so do not allow citizens to understand that symbols are banned, which are similar to those of Nazi and simultaneously gives courts a extremely broad discretion in their application.
73. At the same time, the Court notes that Article 1 letter b) of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity, read together with Article 10 para. (6) of the same law can be interpreted, given the ambiguity of the phrase "propagation and public display of logos or attributes nazi attributes or symbology similar to confusion with nazi attributes or symbols" in that simple use or demonstration symbols attract criminal liability. However, according to art. 10 para. (6) the persons responsible for the preparation, dissemination or illegal storage purpose of subsequent dissemination of the aforementioned materials are brought to criminal liability or minor.
74. Decision no. 12 of June 4, 2013 to review the constitutionality of provisions on banning communist symbols and the promotion of totalitarian ideologies, the Constitutional Court said, referring to the European Court's judgment in Vajnai v. Hungary, that "[...] promoting potential communist totalitarian ideology [...] can not be the sole reason to limit the use of a symbol, especially one with multiple meanings through criminal sanction. Simple display or use the symbol [...] without being known to the totalitarian ambitions, can not be equated with dangerous propaganda. "
75. In the same context, the European Court concluded that, to justify the interference with the applicant's rights, the government must demonstrate that the sign used by the applicant is identified exclusively with totalitarian ideas (Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, judgment of 3 November 2011 § 27).

76. In the case Faber v. Hungary, the European Court said that assuming the symbol displayed by the applicant in question has multiple meanings - that may be viewed as a historical symbol and also as a symbol reminiscent of the Nazi party in Hungary - just under a scrutiny the context in which these offensive expressions are used, can be traced fundamental distinction between expressions shocking and offensive, protected by Article 10 and losing its right to be tolerated in a democratic society. Negative emotions or the feelings of revolt in the absence of intimidation can not be a pressing social need in light of the provisions of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
77. In light of the European Court, the Court finds that the public display of symbols prohibited by national law, in the absence of other actions that show support for totalitarian ideas can not be equated with a totalitarian ideologies promoting dangerous for society.
78. In conclusion, the Court notes that Article 1, letter b) of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 did not satisfy the conditions of Articles 32 and 40 in conjunction with Articles 23 and 54 of the Constitution and represents a restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of association.
For these reasons, under Article 140 of the Constitution, 26 of the Law on Constitutional Court, 6, 61, 62 lit. a) and 68 of the Code of Constitutional Court Constitutional

DECIDES:

1. It admits referral parliamentarian Stefan Creanga Control constitutionality of some provisions of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity.
2. Is declared unconstitutional paragraph b) of Article 1 of Law no. 54 of 21 February 2003 on Counteracting Extremist Activity.
March. This decision is final, can not be subject to any appeal, shall enter into force upon adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova.