CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Published on 8 July 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26424/23 Tessel HOFSTEDE against the Netherlands and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 21 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern an area ban, imposed on the applicants through a criminal behaviour order ( gedragsaanwijzing ), in the context of ongoing criminal proceedings against them. The applicants are representatives of Extinction Rebellion (XR), an international activist movement organising all kinds of protests to persuade governments to act on climate change. They were suspected of having committed, several times, the criminal offence of deliberately inciting attendance of, and taking part in the blockade of a highway, thereby seriously disrupting public order. As a consequence of the measures imposed, the applicants were prevented from participating in the protest on the A12 highway organised by XR on 28 January 2023. The applicants complain that the criminal behaviour orders violated their right to peaceful assembly and expression as protected under Articles 11 and 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention (see Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany , nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 99-101, ECHR   2011 (extracts)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it serve a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society in terms of 11   §   2 of the Convention (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania, [GC], no.   37553/05, §§ 109-110 and 140-160)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 26424/23 Hofstede v. the Netherlands 26/06/2023 Tessel HOFSTEDE 1975 Olst Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 2. 26433/23 Sloot v. the Netherlands 26/06/2023 Sieger Gerjan SLOOT 1977 Amsterdam Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 3. 26439/23 Hendriksen v. the Netherlands 26/06/2023 Paul Johan HENDRIKSEN 1967 Olst Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 4. 26783/23 De Graaf v. the Netherlands 26/06/2023 Jelle DE GRAAF 1989 Amsterdam Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK