CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 8 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49363/20 CENTRAL UNITARIA DE TRABALLADORES/AS against Spain lodged on 30 October 2020 communicated on 13 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to organise and take part in a peaceful demonstration during the Covid-19 pandemic. The applicant, a workers’ union, informed the administrative authorities of its intention to hold a demonstration on 1 May 2020. The applicant proposed to apply appropriate sanitary measures to prevent the spread of the virus and expressed its willingness to adopt any other measures that might be suggested. The administrative authorities refused to authorise the demonstration, limiting themselves to explain that the circumstances of the pandemic were sufficiently serious for the applicant’s right to demonstrate to be restricted. On appeal, the High Court of Justice of Galicia upheld the administration’s decision to prohibit the demonstration. The amparo appeal brought before the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible. The Constitutional Court weighed up the two fundamental rights in conflict, the right to demonstrate and the right to health and, in view of the specific circumstances, decided that the latter should prevail.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention? 2.     Has the applicant suffered an interference with its rights of freedom of expression or of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Articles 10 and/or   11 of the Convention? 3.     If so, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society, in accordance with Articles 10   §   2 and/or 11   §   2? In particular, was the prohibition of the demonstration proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued? Would less stringent measures have achieved the same or a comparable result?