The applicant was one of two arrested demonstrating against the Austrian armed forces at a military parade. They had rucksacks on their backs, with slogans on them. The rucksacks were so large that they blocked other spectators’ view of the parade. This caused ‘a commotion’ among the spectators who were protesting loudly at the obstruction. The demonstrators were arrested to prevent disorder.
Held: In the circumstances it could not be said that the arrests had not been a proportionate way of preventing disorder. There had accordingly been no violation of the applicant’s article 10 rights. The phrase ‘likely to cause annoyance’ satisfied the requirement of reasonable certainty: ‘the level of precision required of the domestic legislation – which cannot in any case provide for every eventuality – depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument considered, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed.’
[1993] ECHR 36, 13308/87, (1993) 17 EHRR 358, [1993] ECHR 36
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 6-Mar-2008
The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Crime
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.165277
