CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2024

.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 } Published on 25 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 11301/23 Elliott CUCIUREAN against the United Kingdom lodged on 9 March 2023 communicated on 7 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a serial protestor against the HS2 scheme (“HS2”), a planned high-speed railway line in England which was under construction at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. His involvement in these protests has resulted in at least one criminal conviction, a number of findings of contempt of court and the imposition of various terms of imprisonment which, save for the proceedings which form the basis of the present complaint, have always been suspended. In June 2022 the applicant was the subject of an application for committal for contempt of court. He admitted that he had spent forty-six days in a tunnel under the proposed route of the HS2 in Staffordshire, which the High Court found to be in breach of an injunction. He was sentenced to 268 days imprisonment (7 days per day underground with a twenty percent reduction to reflect the mitigating factors), of which he served 134 days. He was also fined GBP   3,000 and ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of around GBP   18,000. On 17 November 2022 the Court of Appeal quashed the GBP   3,000 fine but dismissed the remainder of his appeal. Following the judgment of the Court of Appeal the applicant made consequential submissions. In respect of costs, he submitted that there should be no order as to costs, or a very limited order. The claimant’s claimed costs exceeded GBP   35,000, and he argued that such an order, if granted, would disproportionately interfere with his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention when considered together with the sanctions already imposed (being the sentence of imprisonment and costs order made by the High   Court). However, the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, assessed at GBP   25,000. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of the Court of Appeal’s costs order. On 25 November 2022 the Court of Appeal refused the application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and declined to certify a point of law of general public importance. The applicant complained that the costs order was disproportionate and violated his rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention about the costs order?   2.     Did the costs order in the present case interfere with the applicant’s rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of either Article?