CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 15 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9EC3D246 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4D040A4F { width:9.67pt; display:inline-block } .sAAA99C83 { width:172.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }         GRAND CHAMBER                 CASE OF KUDREVIČIUS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA   (Application no. 37553/05)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   15 October 2015           This judgment is final.   In the case of Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President ,   Josep Casadevall,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Angelika Nußberger,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   George Nicolaou,   Luis López Guerra,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   André Potocki,   Helena Jäderblom,   Aleš Pejchal,   Johannes Silvis,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Egidijus Kūris,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2015 and 9 September 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 37553/05) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Lithuanian nationals, Mr Arūnas Kudrevičius, Mr   Bronius Markauskas, Mr Artūras Pilota, Mr Kęstutis Miliauskas and Mr   Virginijus Mykolaitis (“the applicants”), on 8 October 2005. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr K. Stungys and Mr E. Losis, two lawyers practising in Vilnius. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that their conviction for rioting had violated their rights to freedom of assembly and expression and that the law under which they had been convicted did not meet the requirements of Article   7 of the Convention. 4.     On 21 May 2008 notice of the application was given to the Government. 5.     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 26 November 2013 a Chamber of the Second Section, composed of Guido Raimondi, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque and Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, unanimously declared the application admissible in respect of the complaints under Articles 7 and 11 of the Convention and inadmissible for the remainder. By four votes to three, the Chamber held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 7 of the Convention and that the respondent State was to pay each applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 6.     On 26 February 2014 the Government asked for the case to be referred to the Grand Chamber by virtue of Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73. On 14 April 2014 a panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 8.     The applicants and the Government each filed observations (Rule 59 §   1). 9 .     A public hearing was scheduled for 26 November 2014. However, in a fax of 27 October 2014, the applicants’ representative, Mr Stungys, indicated that he did not have a sufficient command of either of the Court’s official languages to be able to participate fully in a hearing, and was not able to find another lawyer with the relevant skills who could assist him. He therefore requested that the case be heard in his absence and annexed an unsolicited document of nine pages in which, in substance, he replied to the arguments developed in the Government’s observations before the Grand Chamber. In a letter of 30 October 2014, the Court informed the Government that, given the applicants’ representative’s position, it might consider dispensing with a public hearing and giving the parties the opportunity to file a reply to each other’s observations. In a fax of 3   November 2014, the Government stated that they did not have any objections to the case being examined without a public hearing and that they would at the same time appreciate the opportunity to file a reply to the applicants’ observations. 10.     On 4 November 2014 the President decided to cancel the public hearing and first deliberations scheduled for 26 November 2014 and to invite the parties to submit, by 17 December 2014, further written observations in reply to each other’s initial observations. The applicants’ representative was informed that, should he not submit any new observations within the prescribed time-limit, the document annexed to his fax of 27 October 2014 would be treated as his reply to the Government’s submissions before the Grand Chamber. 11.     In November 2014 the applicants’ representative (Mr Stungys) passed away. The applicants appointed a new representative, Mr Losis, who clarified that the document annexed to Mr Stungys’s fax of 27 October (see paragraph 9 above) should be treated as the applicants’ reply to the Government’s submissions. The Government were informed accordingly. They submitted their observations in reply on 17   December 2014. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 12.     The first applicant, Mr   Arūnas Kudrevičius (“A.K.”), was born in 1970 and lives in Vaitkūnai village, Utena region; the second applicant, Mr Bronius Markauskas (“B.M.”), was born in 1960 and lives in Triušeliai village, Klaipėda region; the third applicant, Mr   Artūras Pilota (“A.P.”), was born in 1973 and lives in Ožkasviliai village, Marijampolė region; the fourth applicant, Mr   Kęstutis Miliauskas (“K.M.”), was born in 1959 and lives in Jungėnai village, Marijampolė region; and the fifth applicant, Mr   Virginijus Mykolaitis (“V.M.”), was born in 1961 and lives in Varakiškė village, Vilkaviškis region. A.     The farmers’ demonstrations 13 .     On 15 April 2003 a group of farmers held a demonstration in front of the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament) building to protest about the situation in the agricultural sector with regard to a fall in wholesale prices for various agricultural products and the lack of subsidies for their production, demanding that the State take action. On 22 April 2003 Parliament passed a resolution on reinforcing the competitiveness of agriculture, providing for an increase in subsidies for the agricultural sector. According to the applicants, this resolution was not implemented by the government. 14 .     On 16 May 2003 the Chamber of Agriculture ( Žemės ūkio rūmai ), an organisation established to represent the interests of farmers, met to discuss possible solutions to the issues. If no positive changes in legal regulation were forthcoming, the measures foreseen included addressing complaints to the administrative courts. In the meantime, it was decided to organise protests, in three different locations next to major highways ( prie magistralinių kelių ), to draw attention to the problems in the agricultural sector. 15 .     In May 2003 the Kalvarija municipality issued a permit to hold peaceful assemblies in Kalvarija town “near the marketplace” from 8 a.m. to 11   p.m. between 13 and 16 May 2003, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 17 May 2003 and from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on 19 and 20 May 2003. The organisers had been warned about possible liability under the Code of Administrative Law Offences as well as under the Criminal Code, including under Article 283 of the latter (see paragraph 62 below). According to the Government, similar permits, accompanied by the same warnings, were issued for 21 to 23, 24 and 26 to 30   May 2003. 16 .     On 8 May 2003 the Pasvalys municipality issued a permit to hold a demonstration “at the car park at the sixty-third kilometre of the Via Baltica highway and next to that highway”. The farmers were also authorised to display agricultural machinery for ten days from 15 to 25 May 2003. On 12   May 2003 the organisers of the gathering were informed about possible liability under the Code of Administrative Law Offences as well as under the Criminal Code, including under Article 283 of the latter. 17 .     On 19 May 2003 the Klaipėda municipality issued a permit to hold an assembly in an “area in Divupiai village next to, but not closer than twenty-five metres from, the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway” from 11 a.m. to 11   p.m. between 19 and 25 May 2003. The permit specified that it granted the right to organise a peaceful assembly in compliance with the provisions set forth, inter alia , in the Constitution and in the Law on Assembly. It was also indicated therein that the organisers and the participants were to observe the laws and to adhere to any orders from the authorities and the police; failure to do so could engage their administrative or criminal liability. The second applicant, B.M., who was indicated as one of the organisers of the gathering, signed a receipt for the notification of the permit. 18.     The Klaipėda police received information about the demonstrators’ possible intention to overstep the limits established by the permits. B.M.   was therefore contacted by telephone and a meeting with him was organised in order to avoid unlawful acts being carried out during the demonstrations. 19 .     The demonstrations started on 19   May 2003. The farmers gathered in the designated areas. 20 .     On 21 May 2003 the farmers blocked and continued to demonstrate on the roads next to Divupiai village, on the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway, at the sixty-third kilometre of the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, and at the ninety-fourth kilometre of the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway. 21 .     The Government pointed out that the police had not received any prior official notification of the demonstrators’ intention to block the three major roads of the country. They described as follows the behaviour of the farmers and of the applicants during the demonstrations. (a)     On 21 May 2003 at around 12 noon, a group of approximately 500   people walked onto the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway and remained standing there, thus stopping the traffic. (b)     On 21 May 2003 at 12 noon, a group of approximately 250 people walked onto the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway and remained standing there, thus stopping the traffic. The blockade remained in place until 12   noon on 23 May 2003. The first applicant encouraged the demonstrators to move from the car park onto the highway. (c)     On 21 May 2003 at 11.50 a.m. a group of 1,500 people walked onto the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway and remained standing there, thus stopping the traffic. In addition, on the same day between 3 and 4.30   p.m. the third, fourth and fifth applicants drove tractors onto the highway and left them there. The blockade remained in place until 4 p.m. on 22 May 2003. 22 .     On 22 May 2003 the farmers continued negotiations with the government. The next day, following a successful outcome to those negotiations, the farmers stopped blocking the roads. B.     Consequences of the demonstrations 23.     The parties disagreed as to the extent of the disruption to traffic created by the farmers’ demonstrations. 24 .     According to the applicants (see paragraph 121 below), knowing that blockades were likely to occur, the police had prepared alternative road itineraries in the vicinity of the places where the demonstrations were held, so that the roadblocks would not disrupt the flow of goods. Indeed, on the days in question the latter had been “even better than usual”. This could be proven by the “data from posts where the roadblocks took place”. 25.     In a letter of 24 August 2004 addressed to the applicants’ lawyer, the State Border Guard Service indicated that several queues of lorries (ranging from 2 to 10 kilometres long) had formed from 21 until 23 May 2003 in both directions in the proximity of the Kalvarija border crossing between Lithuania and Poland. According to the same letter, “there were no queues of passenger cars”. Moreover, no queues had formed at the Lazdijai State border post (another post on the Lithuanian-Polish border). 26.     The Government observed, firstly, that the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway was the main trunk road connecting the three biggest cities in the country, while the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway (otherwise known as Via Baltica) and the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway were transitional trunk roads used to enter and leave the country. According to the Government, all three roads were blocked at locations next to the customs post for approximately forty-eight hours. 27.     The Government alleged, in particular, that owing to the blocking of the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway, which prevented vehicles from passing through border control, queues of heavy goods vehicles and cars formed in Lithuania and Poland at the Kalvarija border crossing. The heavy goods vehicles were forced to drive along other routes in order to avoid traffic jams. As the functioning of the Kalvarija customs post was disrupted, the Kaunas territorial customs authority was obliged to re-allocate human resources as well as to prepare for a possible reorganisation of activities with the State Border Guard Service and the Polish customs. As a consequence, the Kaunas territorial customs authority incurred additional costs; however, the concrete material damage had not been calculated. 28 .     According to a report of the Kalvarija police, the road was blocked on 22 May 2003. The lorries returning to Lithuania from Poland were directed by the police to a car park at the Kalvarija border crossing. At around 11.40 a.m. the lorry drivers approached the farmers. They demanded an end to the roadblocks, under threat of physical force. The police urged the parties to the conflict to calm down and to wait for the outcome of the negotiations between the farmers and the Prime Minister. According to the Government, the farmers and the lorry drivers had a few arguments, but more serious confrontations were avoided. At around 4.15 p.m. the farmers received a telephone call regarding the positive outcome of the negotiations and moved one tractor off the road. The traffic then resumed in both directions. 29.     The Government also noted that, owing to the blocking of the Vilnius-Riga highway on 22 May 2003 from 2 until 4 p.m., heavy goods vehicles could not cross the border and queues of traffic of 1,600 and 700   metres respectively appeared in both directions. Cars took diversions along a gravel road. 30 .     On 1 September 2003 the Pasvalys police issued a certificate stating that between 19 and 23   May 2003 the farmers had held a demonstration in the car park at the sixty-third kilometre of the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway. On 21 May 2003 at around midday the farmers had gone onto the highway and had stopped the traffic. They had only allowed through passenger vehicles and vehicles carrying dangerous substances. Goods vehicles and cars were allowed to go through ten at a time on each side of the road once every hour. In order to improve the situation, the police had attempted to let the traffic bypass the blockade through neighbouring villages. However, owing to the poor condition of those neighbouring roads, not all goods vehicles were able to drive on them and they had to remain on the highway until the farmers had left. Some lorries became stuck in sand and special machinery was necessary to pull them out. The police indicated that the farmers had unblocked the highway at 4   p.m. on 23   May 2003. 31.     As can be seen from the documents submitted to the Court, in May and September 2003 four logistics companies informed the police and Linava, the Lithuanian National Road Carriers’ Association, that they had sustained pecuniary damage in the sum of 25,245 Lithuanian litai ((LTL)   – approximately 7,300 euros (EUR)) as a result of the roadblocks during the farmers’ demonstrations. The companies stated that they would institute court proceedings in respect of those claims. 32.     The Government alleged that, notwithstanding the fact that only one claim for pecuniary damage was ultimately lodged (see paragraph   40 below), more than one carrier company incurred material loss owing to the disruption of traffic. As submitted by Linava, Vilniaus Dobilas incurred damage amounting to LTL 6,100 (approximately EUR 1,760); Rokauta incurred damage amounting to LTL 4,880 (approximately EUR 1,400); and Immensum incurred damage amounting to LTL 3,600 (approximately EUR   1,050). Moreover, in a letter of 26 May 2003, the company Ridma indicated that the loss incurred by them owing to the roadblocks amounted to LTL   10,655 (approximately EUR 3,000). C.     Criminal proceedings against the applicants 1.     Pre-trial investigations and first-instance trial before the Kaunas City District Court 33 .     Pre-trial investigations against the applicants and a number of other persons, on suspicion of having caused a riot, were initiated. In July 2003 B.M., V.M., A.P. and K.M. were ordered not to leave their places of residence. That measure was lifted in October 2003. 34 .     On 1 October 2003 the police imposed a fine of LTL   40 (approximately EUR 12) on a farmer, A.D. According to the applicants, it was established in the police record relating to the fine that on 21 May 2003 A.D. had taken the farmers to block the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway in the Kalvarija municipality; he had walked in the middle of the road, pushing a cart in front of him, thus obstructing the traffic. By such actions A.D. had breached paragraph 81 of the Road Traffic Regulations (see paragraph   67 below) and thus committed an administrative-law violation, as provided for in Article 131 of the Code of Administrative Law Offences (see paragraph   66 below). 35 .     The Government noted that the criminal proceedings against A.D. were discontinued on 1 August 2003 as he had not organised or provoked a gathering to seriously breach public order; his act (walking in the middle of the road pushing a cart in front of him) was not considered to fall under Article   283 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 62 below). The Government further noted that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued on similar grounds in respect of three other persons. In respect of a fourth person the criminal prosecution was discontinued owing to his immunity as a member of parliament. 36.     On 4 December 2003 an indictment was laid before the courts. B.M.   and A.K. were accused of incitement to rioting under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 37.     The prosecutor noted that B.M. had taken part in the farmers’ meeting of 16 May 2003, at which the farmers had decided to hold demonstrations near major highways on 19 May and, should the government not satisfy their requests by 11 a.m. on 21 May, to blockade those highways. On 19 May B.M. had told the farmers to blockade the roads on 21   May. As a result, at 12.09   p.m. on that date around 500 farmers had gone onto the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway. The farmers had refused to obey police requests not to stand on the road. Consequently, traffic had been blocked until 1   p.m. on 23   May. Traffic jams had occurred on neighbouring roads and road transport in the region had become impossible. 38.     With regard to A.K., the prosecutor claimed that he had also incited the farmers to blockade the highway. As a result, at midday on 21   May 2003 approximately 250 people had gone onto the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, refusing to obey police orders not to block the highway. The road had remained blocked until 10.58 a.m. on 23 May. The roads in the vicinity had become clogged. The normal functioning of the Saločiai-Grenctale border-control post had been disrupted. 39.     V.M., K.M. and A.P. were accused of a serious breach of public order during the riot, under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor maintained that on 21 May 2003, at around 11.50 a.m., approximately 1,500 people had gone onto the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway at the ninety-fourth kilometre. At about 3 or 4 p.m. the above-mentioned applicants had driven three tractors onto the highway and had left them on the carriageway. The three applicants had refused to follow police instructions not to breach public order and not to leave the tractors on the road. The tractors had remained on the road until 4.15 p.m. on 22 May 2003. As a result, the highway had been blocked from the eighty-fourth to the ninety-fourth kilometre. Due to the resulting increase in traffic on neighbouring roads, congestion had built up and road transport in the region had come to a halt. The normal functioning of the Kalvarija and Marijampolė State border-control posts had been disrupted. 40 .     Within the criminal proceedings, a logistics company brought a civil claim against A.K., as the person who had incited the farmers to block the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, seeking damages of LTL 1,100 (approximately EUR   290) for the loss allegedly incurred by it owing to the blockading of that road. 41.     Several hearings, during which a number of witnesses testified, took place before the Kaunas City District Court. 42.     On 29 September 2004 the Kaunas City District Court found the applicants guilty of incitement to rioting or participating in them, under Article   283 §   1 of the Criminal Code. 43 .     In convicting B.M., the District Court relied on video-recordings of the events, documentary evidence and the testimony of one witness. The court concluded that B.M. had organised a gathering with the aim of seriously breaching public order, namely by rioting. B.M. had been one of the leaders of the farmers’ meeting on 16 May 2003, at which the farmers had decided to attempt to achieve their goals by organising protests next to major highways. The District Court noted that B.M. had coordinated the actions of the farmers and as a consequence, on 21 May 2003, approximately 500 people had gone on to the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway and had blocked it. As a result, traffic had been blocked until 23 May 2003. The ensuing serious breach of public order had been deliberate and had to be characterised as a riot. The District Court dismissed B.M.’s claim that he and other farmers had acted out of necessity because the roadblock had been their last opportunity to draw the government’s attention to their problems. The farmers had had an alternative, namely, they could have brought complaints before the administrative courts. The farmers had themselves mentioned that alternative during the meeting of 16 May 2003 (see paragraph   14 above). The District Court further noted that a person who created a dangerous situation by his or her actions could only rely on the defence of necessity when a dangerous situation arose through negligence (Article   31 §   2 of the Criminal Code – see paragraph 65 below). However, the actions of B.M. had been deliberate and it was therefore appropriate to find him guilty of organising the riot. 44 .     The District Court found it established, mainly on the basis of video-recordings and documentary evidence, that A.K. had also organised a gathering with the aim of seriously breaching public order. He had taken part in the farmers’ meeting of 16 May 2003 and had known about the decision to hold protests next to the roads. When a crowd of farmers had blocked the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway on 21 May 2003, public order had been seriously breached. Traffic had been stopped on that part of the road, causing inconvenience to drivers and goods carriers. The District Court held that “during the blockade of 21 and 22 May, A.K. coordinated the actions of the crowd, that is to say he gave orders that some of the vehicles should be let through, incited [the farmers] to hold on and not to move away from the highway, was in contact with the participants in the protests in the Kalvarija municipality and the Klaipėda region, [and] was negotiating with the authorities by mobile phone in the name of the farmers”. The District Court emphasised that the farmers who had gathered (approximately 250 people) “obeyed the actions of A.K. and followed his orders”. For the District Court, the actions of A.K. were to be characterised as organising a riot under Article   283 §   1 of the Criminal Code. 45 .     On the basis of written evidence submitted by Linava, the District Court also found that by organising the blockade of the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, A.K. had caused pecuniary damage to three carrier companies. As one of the carriers had submitted a civil claim for the sum of LTL   1,100 (approximately EUR 290 – see paragraph 40 above), the District Court deemed it proper to grant that claim. 46 .     In finding V.M., K.M. and A.P. guilty of causing a serious breach of public order during a riot, the District Court, on the basis of documentary evidence, audio-visual material and the testimony of two witnesses, established that on 21 May 2003 between 11.50 a.m. and 4.15 p.m. the three of them had driven tractors onto the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway at the ninety-fourth kilometre. They had refused to obey lawful orders by the police not to breach public order and not to park the tractors on the road ( ant važiuojamosios kelio dalies ) and had kept the tractors there until 4.15 p.m. on 22 May 2003. As a consequence, and because about 1,500 people had gathered on the road, the traffic had been blocked from the eighty-fourth to the ninety-fourth kilometre of the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway, traffic jams had occurred and the normal functioning of the Kalvarija and Lazdijai border-control posts had been disrupted. 47 .     The five applicants were each given a sixty-day custodial sentence ( baudžiamasis areštas ). The District Court also noted that all the applicants had positive characteristics and that there were no circumstances aggravating their guilt. Accordingly, there was reason to believe that the aim of the punishment could be achieved without actually depriving them of their liberty. Consequently, the District Court suspended the execution of their sentences for one year. The applicants were ordered not to leave their places of residence for more than seven days without the authorities’ prior agreement. This measure was to last for one year, while execution of the sentence was suspended. 48.     The District Court also acquitted, for lack of evidence, two other individuals charged with organising the riots. 2.     Appeal before the Kaunas Regional Court 49 .     On 18 October 2004 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Kaunas Regional Court. They noted, inter alia , that another farmer, A.D., had been punished only under administrative law for an identical violation (see paragraphs   34-35 above). 50 .     The applicants further argued that in European Union member States, roadblocks were accepted as a form of demonstration, and that the right to demonstrate was guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They referred, inter alia , to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 (see paragraph 77 below) and to a report of 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities (COM(2001) 160) on the application of that Regulation, as well as to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) in Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Austria (see paragraphs 73-76 below). 51 .     On 14 January 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court found that the District Court had thoroughly and impartially assessed all the circumstances of the case. The Regional Court observed that the offence of rioting endangered public order, public safety and public health, human dignity and the inviolability of property. The objective aspect of the offence was the organising of a gathering of people for a common goal – namely, to breach public order – and the implementation of their decision which, in the instant case, had been to organise the roadblocks. To constitute an offence, the actions also had to be committed deliberately, that is to say, the persons charged had to understand the unlawfulness of their behaviour. In relation to B.M. and A.K., the Regional Court observed that during the demonstrations the two applicants had told others that it had been decided to block the roads. It had been established that B.M. and A.K. had understood that the roadblocks would be illegal and that they had been warned about their liability as organisers. Even so, they had continued to coordinate the farmers’ actions and had insisted that the farmers maintain the roadblocks. As a direct result of the actions of B.M. and A.K., on 21 May 2003 a crowd had gone onto the highways and had blocked them, thereby stopping the traffic and breaching the constitutional rights and liberties of others to move freely and without restriction, causing damage to goods carriers and thus seriously breaching public order. 52 .     The Regional Court also shared the District Court’s conclusion as to the reasonableness of convicting V.M., K.M. and A.P. It noted that by driving tractors onto the highway, thus causing traffic congestion and disturbing the work of the State border-control service, and by refusing to obey lawful requests by the police not to park their tractors on the road, the three applicants had seriously breached public order. The fact that after the highway had been blocked the police and the drivers had negotiated with the farmers, with the result that some of the drivers had been let through, did not diminish the danger caused by the offence or its unlawfulness. The Regional Court also emphasised that the blockading of a major highway had had dangerous consequences and could not be considered to have been a mere administrative-law offence such as a traffic violation. As to the applicants’ argument that their offences were identical to that for which another farmer, A.D., had been given a mere administrative sanction for a traffic violation (see paragraph 49 above), the Regional Court indicated that it was not an administrative tribunal and thus could not comment on the administrative offence. 53 .     While noting that the applicants had the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, the Regional Court nevertheless observed that such right was not without restrictions, should the interests of public order and prevention of crime be at stake. Analogous limitations to freedom of expression were listed in Article 25 of the Lithuanian Constitution (see paragraph 61 below). On this issue, the Regional Court emphasised that the behaviour of B.M. and A.K., in guiding the actions of the other individuals involved in the protest, could not be regarded as a non-punishable expression of their opinion, because they had breached public order, thus engaging criminal liability. 54 .     The Regional Court further noted that the criminal offence had not lost its element of danger to the public merely because the government had refused to raise wholesale prices or had allegedly failed to take the necessary action. 3.     Appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court 55.     On 2 March 2005 the applicants appealed on points of law. 56 .     On 4 October 2005 the Supreme Court, composed of an enlarged chamber of seven judges (see paragraph 70 below), dismissed the appeal. In providing an explanation as to the substance of the offence of rioting, as defined in Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   62 below), the Supreme Court referred to its classification as an offence against public order, which was the objective aspect of the crime ( nusikaltimo objektas ). In describing the scope of the offence, the aforementioned provision stipulated the following features: the organisation of a gathering with the aim of causing public violence, damaging property or otherwise breaching public order, or the commission of those actions during a gathering. For the Supreme Court, a riot was to be characterised as a situation where a gathering of people deliberately and seriously breached public order, caused public violence, or damaged property. The subjective aspect of the crime was that of direct intent ( kaltė pasireiškia tiesiogine tyčia ). The guilty person had to (i) be aware that he or she was performing an action that was listed as an offence in Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code; and (ii) wish to act accordingly. 57 .     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Supreme Court found that the courts below had been correct in characterising the applicants’ actions as falling under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. In particular, the trial court had properly established all the prerequisites for the application of Article 283 § 1, namely that there had been a crowd and that public order had been breached by blocking the highways, stopping traffic and disturbing the work of the State border-control service. The applicants had been sentenced for their offences under a law in force at the time they were committed and their sentences had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code. It followed that the applicants’ convictions had been in accordance with the law and not in breach of Article   7 §   1 of the Convention. 58 .     The Supreme Court also stated that the applicants had not been sentenced for expressing their opinion or imparting ideas, actions which were protected by the guarantees of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, but for actions by which they had seriously breached public order. 59 .     Lastly, the Supreme Court shared the Regional Court’s view that the applicants could not be regarded as having acted out of necessity (see paragraph   54 above). The fall in milk purchase prices and other problems with subsidies for agriculture had not constituted a clear or present danger to property, because the property in question had not yet materialised. The State had not deprived the applicants of their property, and their dissatisfaction with the government’s agricultural policy had not justified the acts for which the applicants had been convicted. 60 .     By court rulings of 17, 18, 20, 21 October and 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court discharged the applicants from their suspended sentences. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     The Constitution 61 .     Articles 25 and 36 of the Constitution read as follows. Article 25 “A natural person shall have the right to have his own convictions and to freely express them. A natural person must not be hindered from seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas. Freedom to express convictions [and] to receive and impart information may not be limited other than by law, if this is necessary to protect the health, honour and dignity, private life and morals of a natural person, or to defend the constitutional order. Freedom to express convictions and to impart information shall be incompatible with criminal actions, such as incitement to national, racial, religious, or social hatred, violence and discrimination, [or] slander and disinformation. ...” Article 36 “Citizens may not be prohibited or hindered from assembling unarmed in peaceful meetings. This right may not be limited other than by law and only when it is necessary to protect the security of the State or society, public order, people’s health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.” B.     The Criminal Code 62 .     On 25 October 2000 the Criminal Code was published in the Official Gazette ( Valstybės žinios ) and it came into force on 1 May 2003. Article   283 § 1 establishes criminal liability for rioting, which is categorised as a public-order offence, and provides as follows. Article 283 – Rioting “A person who organises or provokes a gathering of people to commit public acts of violence, damage property or otherwise seriously breach public order, or a person who, during a riot, commits acts of violence, damages property or otherwise seriously breaches public order, is liable to be sentenced to a short-term custodial sentence [ baudžiamasis areštas ] or to imprisonment for up to five years.” 63.     Article 75 §§ 1 and 2 stipulates that if a person is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years for the commission of one or several minor or less serious premeditated offences, a court may suspend the sentence for a period ranging from one to three years. The sentence may be suspended when the court rules that there is a sufficient basis for believing that the aim of the punishment will be achieved without the sentence actually being served. When suspending execution of the sentence, the court may order the convicted person not to leave his or her place of residence for a period exceeding seven days without the prior agreement of the authority supervising the execution of the judgment. 64.     Pursuant to Article 97, individuals convicted of a crime and whose conviction has become final are regarded as offenders having a previous conviction. Any person given a suspended sentence is considered as having a previous conviction during the period of suspension of the sentence. 65 .     Article 31 defines the concept of necessity ( būtinasis reikalingumas ). It states that a person is not to be held criminally liable for an act committed in an attempt to avert an immediate danger which threatens him or her, other persons or their rights, or public or State interests, where this danger could not have been averted by other means and where the damage caused is less than the damage which it is intended to avert. Nonetheless, a person who creates a dangerous situation by his or her actions may only rely upon the defence of necessity when the dangerous situation arose through negligence ( dėl neatsargumo ). C.     Code of Administrative Law Offences and Road Traffic Regulations 66 .     Article   124 1 of the Code of Administrative Law Offences at the relevant time provided for administrative liability for a breach of traffic regulations by drivers. The provision stipulated that a breach of the regulations on how and when a driver could stop and park on highways carried a fine ranging from LTL 100 to LTL 150 (approximately EUR   30 ‑ 45). Article 131 of the Code provided for administrative liability for the non-observance by pedestrians of traffic signs, or for crossing or walking on a carriageway. The offence was punishable by a fine of LTL   30 ‑ 50 (approximately EUR   8-15). 67 .     The Road Traffic Regulations provide that pedestrians must walk on the pavement and, if there is none, on the right side of the road in single file (paragraph   81 of the Regulations). D.     The Law on assembly 68 .     In so far as relevant, the Law on assembly provides as follows. Article 8 – Prohibited gatherings “The following gatherings shall be prohibited, where their participants: ... (2)     drive vehicles in a way which causes a threat to road safety, endangers the safety and health of the participants in a gathering and other persons, or breaches public order and peace; ...” Article 17 – Termination of a gathering on the initiative of the police “A gathering shall be terminated by the police officers whose duty it is to ensure observance of the law during the course thereof, if, when publicly warned, the organisers of or participants in the gathering: (1)     commit a deliberate and gross breach of the procedure for organising gatherings as laid down by the present Law ... (2)     by making use of the opportunities afforded by a gathering, attempt to commit or commit crimes against the independence, territorial integrity and constitutional order of the State of Lithuania or other deliberate criminal acts against a person’s life, health, freedom, honour and dignity, or against public safety, governance and public order; (3)     individually or by group actions disturb, or cause an actual threat to disturb, traffic or the activities of State establishments, organisations and local authorities ...” 69.     Article 188 7 of the Code of Administrative Law Offences provides: “Violation of the Law on Assembly shall carry a fine ranging from LTL 500 to LTL   2,000 or result in administrative arrest of up to thirty days. Breaches of public order at other large-scale events shall carry a fine ranging from LTL   100 to LTL 500.” E.     The Law on courts 70 .     The Law on courts at the material time provided that the Supreme Court established uniform judicial practice in interpreting and applying laws and other regulations. The Supreme Court also analysed the practice of courts and gave recommendations to be followed. Depending on the complexity of the case, the Supreme Court could decide cases in chambers of three or seven judges or in plenary session (Articles   23, 27 and 36). III.     RELEVANT EUROPEAN UNION LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Case-law of the ECJ 1.     The case of Commission of the European Communities v. France 71 .     The ECJ examined the issue of obstruction to the free movement of goods in Commission of the European Communities v. France (C ‑ 265/95, judgment of 9   December 1997 – “the Commission case”), concerning serious incidents which occurred in the south of France. Agricultural products from Spain and Italy had been destroyed by French farmers and acts of violence and vandalism had been committed in the relevant wholesale and retail sectors. The ECJ emphasised that, in accordance with the EC Treaty, the European internal market was characterised by the abolition, between member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods. Article 30 of the Treaty prohibited, between member States, quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect. Therefore, all barriers, whether direct or indirect, actual or potential, to flows of imports in intra-Community trade had to be eliminated. Article 30, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Treaty, also applied where a member State abstained from adopting the measures required in order to deal with obstacles to the free movement of goods which were not caused by the State. 72 .     The ECJ accepted that States enjoyed a margin of discretion in determining what measures were more appropriate in this field. It was, however, clear that the acts of violence committed in France against agricultural products originating in other member States created obstacles to intra-Community trade in those products. The incidents in issue had taken place regularly for more than ten years; in certain cases the French authorities had been warned of the imminence of demonstrations by farmers, the disruption had continued for several hours and the acts of vandalism, committed by persons whose faces were often not covered, had been filmed by television cameras. In spite of this, only a very small number of perpetrators had been identified and prosecuted. This was sufficient for the ECJ to come to the conclusion that the measures adopted by the French government were manifestly inadequate to ensure freedom of intra-Community trade in agricultural products on its territory and that France had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30, taken in conjunction with Article   5 of the EC Treaty. This had created a climate of insecurity which had had a deterrent effect on trade flow as a whole and the difficult situation of French farmers could not justify a failure to apply Community Law correctly, as it had not been shown that implementation of that law would have posed a danger to public order with which the State could not cope. It was true that the threat of serious disruption to public order might, in appropriate cases, justify non-intervention by the police; however, this argument could have been put forward only with respect to a specific incident, and not in a general way covering all the incidents in issue. 2.     The case of Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Austria 73 .     In Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Austria , (C-112/00, judgment of 12 June 2003 – “the Schmidberger case”), the ECJ gave a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 30, 34 and 36 (now Articles   34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – TFEU), read together with Article 5 of the EC Treaty (repealed and replaced in substance by Article 4 § 3 of the Treaty on European Union – TEU) and on the conditions for liability of a member State for damage caused to individuals by a breach of Community Law. The case originated in the permission implicitly granted by the Austrian authorities to an environmental group to organise a demonstration on the Brenner motorway, the effect of which was to completely close that motorway to traffic for almost thirty hours. In conjunction with a pre-existing, national, generally applicable ban on holiday driving, this caused the Brenner motorway (an essential intra-Community transit route) to be closed to the majority of heavy goods traffic for four consecutive days, with a short interruption of a few hours. 74 .     After referring to the principles laid down in the Commission case (see paragraphs 71-7