CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 February 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18079/15 Mihail-Liviu BUMBEȘ against Romania lodged on 25 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in an administrative fine which was imposed on the applicant on 28 August 2013 because he had staged and taken part in a short protest in front of the Romanian Parliament together with three other persons. The protest concerned a law project, which was adopted by the Government on 27 August 2013 without any prior public consultation. The applicant alleged that the final judgment of 10 June 2015 delivered by the Bucharest County Court, which upheld the fine imposed on him on the grounds that he had not applied for an authorisation of the protest at least three days before it was held, had breached his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly provided for by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?   2. If so, was that interference justified under Article 10   §   2 and/or Article   11 §   2 of the Convention (see, Karademirci and Others v. Turkey , nos.   37096/97 and 37101/97, 25 January 2005; Bukta and Others v.   Hungary , no. 25691/04, 17 July 2007; and Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, 12   June 2012)?