CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 2022

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 October 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31041/20 Oleg BREGA against Romania lodged on 23 June 2020 communicated on 27 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a fine imposed on the applicant for his failure to comply with a request to stop filming a meeting of a Local Council. On an unspecified date a non-governmental organisation lodged an application with the Bragadiru Local Council for an authorisation to hold a march of protest regarding construction works on a public road. On 9 October 2017, the applicant, who was a sympathiser of the non ‑ governmental organisation in question, accompanied the organisation’s leader to the Bragadiru Local Council in order to attend the meeting where the question of the march was to be decided. After arriving at the Local Council they were shown to a corridor where they had to wait for some thirty minutes while a special commission deliberated on the application. They were then invited into the deputy mayor’s office and sat at a table with six   other persons. The applicant started filming the meeting with his smartphone, while a person read the commission’s decision rejecting the application to hold the march. He was seen filming by those present as he was not hiding his smartphone. After approximately one minute of filming, the person who was reading stopped and asked the applicant to refrain from filming. The applicant objected that they were in a public institution attending a meeting which was public and which concerned a matter of major public interest, all the more so since the commission had abusively rejected the request to hold the march. He presented himself as a civic activist and one of the organisers of the march and invited the persons present to take note of the fact that he was filming for the www.curaj.tv website. The applicant was asked again to stop the filming or to leave the office, but he refused to comply and argued that the requests were unlawful and abusive. After that two police officers escorted him out of the office, subjected him to an identity check on the spot and later fined him 500 lei (approximately 110 euros) on account of his illegal entry onto the premises of the Local Council. He challenged the fine in court, but without success. The applicant complains that his being fined amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Articles 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention ( Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland , no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012)?   The Government are invited to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.