ECHR Article 11-1
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Complete blockage of a village in response to a peaceful demonstration: violation
Facts – On 10 April 2006 a group of people sent written notice to the district authorities that on 25 April they wished to hold a demonstration of 5,000 people at a park in the village of Usukhchay. A week later the authorities received the notice but refused to authorise the demonstration for three reasons: the notice had been lodged outside the five-day time window fixed by the Public Gatherings Act; the park was not supposed to admit more than 500 people; and the allegations of the demonstrators were false and had been refuted by official investigations. Nevertheless, the organisers proceeded to hold the demonstration as planned, and the first and third applicants took part. The police set up a blockade to prevent the protesters from reaching the centre of the village, so the protesters marched to the neighbouring village of Miskindzha. At around 1 p.m. the demonstrators blocked a federal-level road. When the police tried to clear the blockade, some of the protesters started throwing stones at them. In response, the police began using firearms and special equipment. By the end of the clashes, several civilians and police officers were injured and one civilian had died. The first applicant was later arrested in connection with this event, held in pre-trial detention for almost two months and ultimately released.
Law – Article 11: The applicants complained that the authorities’ refusal to allow the demonstration of 25 April 2006, the violent dispersal of that demonstration and the arrest of the three applicants had breached their right to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly.
(a) Demonstration and its dispersal – In order to determine whether the dispersal of the demonstration was justified, the Court first examined and rejected the three reasons adduced by the district authorities not to allow the demonstration. First, the Public Gatherings Act was ambiguous as to whether the five-day time window for lodging the notice referred to sending or receiving the notice, and thus the organisers should have been excused for misinterpreting the law. In addition, the domestic law provided for a very short time-slot within which the notice could be lodged; the organisers had not waited till the eve of the event, but had posted the notice on the first day of the prescribed period and so had made a reasonable effort to comply with the very tough requirement of the law. Second, the size of the park was not a sufficient reason for a total ban on the demonstration; the authorities should have proposed another venue to the organisers. Third, public events related to political life had to enjoy strong protection under Article 11 and only in rare situations could a gathering be legitimately banned in relation to the substance of the message its participants wished to convey. A Government authority should not have the power to ban a demonstration merely because it believes the demonstrators’ message to be wrong, especially when, as here, it was the main target of the criticism. Therefore, the decision not to allow the demonstration was unjustified. This finding, however, did not suffice to conclude that the dispersal of the demonstration was unjustified. The Court proceeded to examine the events of 25 April 2006 by dividing them into two phases.
(i) Blockade of Usukhchay village – The blockade itself was lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. Nevertheless, it was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The temporary blocking of a main road and the risk of clashes were insufficient to justify the complete blockage of the village, especially since the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and indeed ended up being peaceful before the clash near Miskindzha village.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(ii) Clash between the protesters and the police near Miskindzha village – Even if the decision to ban the demonstration was erroneous, and the blockage of Usukhchay village was disproportionate, that did not give the protesters the right to block a federal road or attack the police. Consequently, the intervention of the police fell within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities. Although there was no strong evidence that the first and third applicants were personally involved in any violent act, a considerable number of demonstrators had overstepped the boundary of peaceful protest, attacking policemen with stones, sticks, rods and knives, seriously injuring some of them. Against that background, the use of the special equipment and even firearms by the police did not seem to be unjustified, there being no evidence that the firearms had been used deliberately to kill or wound.
The Court emphasised, however, that it had no complaint from those who had been injured by the police during the clash or whose relative had been killed. In the context of Article 11 it was prepared to conclude that the authorities’ overall response to the blocking of the road and the aggressive behaviour of a big group of protesters was not disproportionate.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
(b) Arrest and detention – The second and third applicants’ complaints, which concerned a separate incident, were declared manifestly ill-founded. As regards the first applicant, his arrest was clearly related to his role in the events of 25 April 2006. The authorities had genuinely suspected him of having incited attacks against the police, so his arrest and detention had a lawful basis and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime. Article 11 did not give immunity against prosecution for violent actions during public gatherings, especially where the intensity of violence was considerable. There was no evidence that the authorities had acted in bad faith, and the first applicant’s two-month detention pending the investigation was reasonable given the complexity of the case. Finally, the fact that he was released and the charges against him were dropped for lack of sufficient evidence was indicative of the authorities’ will to establish the truth and not just put the blame for the events on the leaders of the protesters.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,500 each to the first and the third applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
17391/06 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 808
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535177
