CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3A7B88C7 { width:286.5pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 June 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 64755/19 Săndel MATEI against Romania lodged on 4 December 2019 communicated on 30 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application pertains to the applicant’s conviction of a misdemeanour due to his involvement in a peaceful yet unsanctioned anti ‑ government demonstration. On 17 July 2018, the applicant participated in a public protest demonstration in front of the Government’s headquarters to express his dissatisfaction with changes made to the Criminal Code. Despite being peaceful, the demonstration had not been authorised by the local authorities as required by the law. The applicant carried a sign which he intended suspending on some electricity wires. A police officer instructed the applicant to desist and leave, but he declined to obey. Consequently, he was fined an approximate sum of 220 Euros, under Article 26 (1) (d) and (e) of Law No.   60/1991. The applicant contested the decision in court and achieved partial success when the court commuted the fine to a formal warning, while still holding him guilty of participating in an unsanctioned demonstration. The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, alleging a violation of his rights to freedom of speech and assembly.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention ( Brega and Others v. Moldova , no. 61485/08, 24 January 2012)?   The Government are invited to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.