Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Summaries of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases relating to demonstrations, riots, and protests between January 2013 and October 2014. The cases cover various issues, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, and the use of force by law enforcement. published by the Open Society Justice Initiative.
What you will learn
Typology: Exams
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
ECt HR Case Summaries: Demonst rat ions, Riot s and Prot est s
This Case Digest collects summaries of cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights relating to demonstrations, riots, and protests. Though most of these cases were brought under Article 11 (right to freedom of assembly), it is important to note that some of these cases have been brought under different articles. The cases have been organized in reverse chronological order, starting with the most recent. The list includes relevant cases decided between January 2013 and October 2014.
All facts of the cases have been taken from official press releases or case summaries issued by the European Court of Human Rights.
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
Primo v and Ot hers v. R ussia
12 June 2014, Application no. 17391/
Violation of Article 11 for refusal to hold assembly but no violation of Article 11 for dispersal of assembly or applicant’s subsequent arrest.
Facts. The case concerned the banning and dispersal by the police of a demonstration, held on 25 April 2006 in and near the villages of Usukhchay and Miskindzha in Dagestan, to criticize the work of the head of the local administration and to protest against corruption. The organizers had sent written notice of the protest, but authorities refused to authorize it on three grounds: the notice had not been filed within the five day window fixed by the Public Gatherings Act, the park could not hold the number stipulated in the notice (500 people), and the allegations of the protesters concerning corruption were false and had been refuted by an official investigation. A police blockade was set up to stop the protesters from entering the village in which they had proposed to hold the protest. The protesters marched to a neighboring village and blocked a federal road. When the police tried to clear the protest, some of the protesters started throwing stones and violence erupted between police and protesters. By the end of the clashes, several civilians and police officers were injured and one civilian had died. One of the applicants was later arrested in connection with this event and held in pretrial detention for almost two months before being released.
According to two of the applicants, Niyaz Primov and Bunyam Askerov, who participated in the protest, the police fired with rifles over protesters’ heads and used tear gas and smoke bombs to disperse the demonstration. Niyaz and Bunyam were arrested and placed in pretrial detention a few days after the event—the former on suspicion of having incited demonstrators to block the road and the latter on suspicion of having been involved in another scuffle with the police in the village of Khiv a few days before the demonstration. They both remained in pretrial detention for
Dzhavadov, was also arrested for his alleged involvement in the scuffle in Khiv and remained in detention for nearly two months.
Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained about the authorities’ refusal to allow the demonstration, the violent dispersal of the event, and their arrests.
Reasoning. In determining whether the dispersal of the demonstration was justified, the court first examined and rejected the initial grounds on which the authorities had refused to allow the demonstration. The Public Gatherings Act was ambiguous on the time limit—a time limit that was in any case very short. The protest organizers could be excused for misinterpreting it, and had made a reasonable effort to comply with such a tough requirement. Secondly, the size of the park could not justify a total ban of the demonstrations; the authorities should have proposed an alternative venue. Thirdly, banning a demonstration on the grounds of its message can only be justified under Article 11 in very rare situations; authorities should not have the power to ban a
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
demonstration simply because they do not agree with its message, especially when that authority is the target of the criticism. Therefore, the initial decision to ban the demonstration was unjustified and in violation of Article 11.
The court then considered the later dispersal of the demonstration. It first considered the blockade of the village. Though the blockade itself was lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime, 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 authorities’ complete blockade of the village, especially since the demonstration was peaceful before the clash between police and demonstrators near the neighboring village. Therefore, the blockade had been in violation of Article 11.
The court consequently found a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 11, as the authorities had made it impossible for them to hold their proposed protest. The court did not find a violation in regards to the subsequent police intervention, and no violation in respect of the arrest of Primov.
The government’s submission for referral to the Grand Chamber was rejected in October 2014.
Link to full judgment
Taranenko v. R ussia
15 May 2014, Application no. 19554/
Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) in light of Article 11(freedom of assembly).
Facts. The case concerned the detention and conviction of a participant in a protest against the politics of Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2004, organized by the National Bolsheviks Party. Yevgeniya Taranenko was part of a group of about 40 people forced their way through identity and security checks into the reception area of the president’s administration building and locked themselves in one of the offices, where they started to wave placards and distribute leaflets out of
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
Link to full judgment
Pent ikäinen v. Finland
Judgment of 4 February 2014, Application no. 11882/10, Case referred to the Grand Chamber on
3 June 2014
Photographer’s conviction for disobeying the police while covering a demonstration but no
Violation of Article 10. Case referred to Grand Chamber.
Facts. The case concerned the arrest of a photojournalist during a demonstration and his subsequent conviction for disobeying the police. The court underlined in particular that Markus Pentikäinen had not been arrested for acting as a photographer but for refusing to obey police orders to leave the scene of the demonstration. His equipment had not been confiscated and he had not been sanctioned.
Reasoning. In its Chamber judgment of 4 February 2014 the court held, by five votes to two, that
there had been no violation of Article 10 of the convention. It found that the Finnish courts had
struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake and that the interference with the
applicant’s freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society.” The court
underlined in particular that Pentikäinen had not been arrested for acting as a photographer but for
refusing to obey police orders to leave the scene of the demonstration. His equipment had not
been confiscated and he had not been sanctioned.
On 2 June 2014 the applicant’s request for referral was accepted by the Grand Chamber.
Link to full judgment
Kasparov and Ot hers v. Russia
3 November 2013, Application no. 21613/07, Referral to Grand Chamber rejected in February 2014
Arrest of Garri Kasparov and other demonstrators during 2007 opposition meeting in Moscow— unjustified and in violation of Article 11.
Facts. The case concerned the arrest of a group of people ahead of an anti-government demonstration in April 2007—which had been authorized in a limited area—and their ensuing conviction for having breached the regulations on demonstrations.
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
Reasoning. The court found that the applicants’ defense rights had been limited in a manner incompatible with the guarantees of a fair trial, as their request to examine eyewitnesses had been refused. Their arrests had been disproportionate to the aim of maintaining public order. The applicants had been arrested and charged for the sole reason that the authorities had perceived their demonstration to be unauthorized. The court concluded that the forceful intervention had been disproportionate and had not been necessary for the prevention of disorder, in violation of Article 11. The court held there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the convention, and a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).
Government’s request for referral to Grand Chamber was rejected on 17 February 2014.
Link to full judgment
Abdullah Yasa and Ot hers v. Turkey 16 July 2013, Application no. 44827/
Violation of Article 3 and failure to comply with requirements under Article 46.
Facts. The first applicant, Abdullah Yasa , was struck in the face by a tear gas canister which he claimed had been fired directly into the crowd by a law enforcement officer during a demonstration. The public prosecutor decided to take no further action, and refused to examine whether the force used had been proportionate, on the grounds that law enforcement agencies had acted in the interests of maintaining public order and to defend themselves against a hostile crowd.
Reasoning. The injuries suffered by Yasa were unquestionably serious and were considered by the court under Article 3 of the convention, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Video evidence showed the demonstrations had not been peaceful, and as such the use of tear gas to disperse the gathering could be justified. However, this did not justify firing tear gas canisters directly at the protesters. The firing of tear gas canisters using a launcher entailed a risk of causing serious injury, as in the present case, or even of killing someone if the launcher was used improperly. Consequently, given the dangerous nature of the equipment used, the court considered that its case-law on the use of potentially lethal force should apply mutatis mutandis in the present case. As well as being authorized under national law, policing operations—including the firing of tear gas canisters—had to be sufficiently regulated by it, within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness, abuse of force, and avoidable accidents.
Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the court held that the safeguards surrounding the proper use of tear-gas grenades needed to be strengthened in order to minimize the risk of death and injury resulting from their use. The court held there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Link to full judgment
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
Applicant’s request for referral to the Grand Chamber was rejected in December 2012.
Link to full judgment
Gün and Others v. Turkey
Vyerent sov v. Ukraine
11 April 2013, Application no. 20372/
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
Violation of Article 3, Article 6 §§ 1 and Article 11— 20 - year legislative lacuna concerning freedom of peaceful assembly in Ukraine.
Facts. On behalf of a human rights NGO, Oleksiy Vyerentsov notified the mayor of Lviv that he
would hold a series of demonstrations over several months to raise awareness about corruption in
the prosecution service. On 12 October 2010, he organized a peaceful demonstration during
which he was interviewed by police officers who eventually let him go. The following day,
following a complaint by the local council, the administrative court prohibited further
demonstrations—which had already been announced—as of 19 October 2010. The applicant was
taken to the district police station, where he was accused of having breached the procedure for
organizing and holding a demonstration. The next day he was brought before the district court,
which found him guilty of the offenses charged and sentenced him to three days of administrative
detention. Once he had served his sentence, the applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the regional
court of appeal.
The applicant lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a violation
of his rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (the right to a fair trial), Article 7 (no punishment without
law) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly). He argued that he had been sentenced to three days of
administrative detention for holding a demonstration without permission, even though such
permission was not required by domestic law.
Reasoning. The court considered that the case disclosed a structural problem, namely a
legislative lacuna concerning freedom of assembly which has remained in Ukraine since the end
of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the only existing document currently establishing a procedure for
holding demonstrations is a decree adopted in 1988 by the USSR (the 1988 Decree), which is not
generally accepted by the Ukrainian courts as still applicable. Therefore, under Article 46
(binding force and implementation), the court invited Ukraine to urgently reform its legislation
and administrative practice to establish the requirements for the organization and holding of
peaceful demonstrations as well as the grounds for their restriction. The court held, unanimously,
that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly), Article 7 (no punishment
without law), and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the convention.
Link to full judgment
Aydan v. Turke y
12 March 2013, Application no. 16281/1 0
Three violations of Article 2 and a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Facts. The applicants are the widow and mother of A. Aydan, who was fatally wounded on 6
September 2005 by shots fired from a military jeep while he was waiting for a bus close to a
demonstration. In July 2006 the Assize Court decided not to impose a criminal penalty on the
OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE ECtHR Case Summaries: Demonstrations, Riots, and Protests
The Open Society Justice Initiative uses law to protect and empower people around the world. Through litigation, advocacy, research, and technical assistance, the Justice Initiative promotes human rights and builds legal capacity for open societies. Our staff is based in Abuja, Amsterdam, Bishkek, Brussels, Budapest, Freetown, The Hague, London, Mexico City, New York, Paris, Phnom Penh, Santo Domingo, and Washington, D.C.
