5.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Hyde Park (the first applicant) was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice as a non-governmental organisation lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In 2007 its members decided to discontinue the organisation’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the State. In particular, they complained of the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register amendments to the organisation’s articles of association, the repeated freezing of its bank account, the arbitrary arrest of its members, attempts to shut down its newspaper, among other things. Several of the organisation’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries. It was decided to continue the organisation’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the State authorities. It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation’s successor. After removal of the organisation from the Government’s list of non-governmental organisations on 2 June 2008, Hyde Park’s activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association. The association continued editing its newspaper, its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations. 6.  The other applicants are members and supporters of Hyde Park: Gheorghe Lupuşoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Gălescu, Alina Didilică and Oleg Brega who were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chişinău, Chişinău, Chişinău, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively. 7.  On 10 February 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration in front of the Parliament building on 25 February 2006, to protest against the “non-transparent” manner of organising the Eurovision song contest in Moldova. 8.  On 21 February 2006 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the application on the grounds that: “the Parliament was not responsible for organising the Eurovision song contest, which took place in Ukraine and the protest was groundless because it concerned past events”. 9.  On 22 February 2006 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. It also asked that the case be examined urgently. 10.  During the court proceedings the Chişinău Municipal Council relied on two new reasons for rejecting Hyde Park’s application to hold a demonstration, namely that the members of Hyde Park had not participated in the Eurovision song contest and that the problem had already been discussed in Parliament. On 24 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ action, finding that the Municipal Council had lawfully rejected its application and upholding all the reasons relied upon by it. Moreover, the court gave a new reason in favour of the Municipality’s decision not to authorise the demonstration, namely that in its request for authorisation, Hyde Park had failed to correctly indicate the aim of its protest. In particular, it indicated that the protest was intended to be against the manner in which the contest was organised. Later, during the proceedings, it submitted that the intention was to protest against the non-transparent manner in which the televoting in Moldova had taken place. 11.  Hyde Park appealed against this judgment and argued that the judgment had breached the right of its members to hold peaceful meetings in public places contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. 12.  On 28 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.