CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54228/18 Milan KNEŽEVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 8 November 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant, an opposition MP at the relevant time, was one of the organisers of and participants in peaceful protest rallies held between 27   September and 17 October 2015. The protests were aimed at forming transitional Government, organising fair and democratic elections, and a referendum on the respondent State’s membership in the NATO. Even though the authorities were duly notified of the rallies and even though they were peaceful, on 17   October 2015 the police removed the participants’ tents and the stage, and dispersed the assembly. The applicant resisted the police action, following which he was prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced to four months in prison. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2 (see, for example, Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 91-102, 108-118, and 140-183, ECHR 2015, and Gülcü v.   Turkey , no.   17526/10, §§   91 and 111, 19 January 2016)?   2.     The Government are invited to submit to the Court: (a)     the applicant’s/organisers’ notification ( prijava ) of the protest rallies to the authorities; (b)     the decisions related to setting up of the stage, tents and toilets, including the decisions of 24 and 25 September, and 2 October 2015; (c)     all the maps that were part of these decisions; (d)     any other decision related to the rallies.   3.     The Government are further invited to inform the Court: (a)     if the above decisions were served on the organisers of the protest rallies, and if so, when; (b)     if there was a designated area for the protests; (c)     if so, if there was a subsequent change of the venue either by the authorities or the participants; (d)     if the participants, including the applicant, were ordered to vacate the area; (e)     if there was an enforcement order for the removal of the tents and the stage; (f)     if there were any proceedings aimed at establishing if the police action of 17 October 2015 was unlawful; (g)     if the applicant served his sentence.