CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 52776/22 Stanisława SKŁODOWSKA against Poland lodged on 28 October 2022 communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s apprehension by the police when she was heading to an assembly which she had organised and was supposed to preside, and which she had registered in accordance with the relevant law. On 10 May 2022, in the morning, the applicant and several other participants were surrounded by the police and prevented from getting to the place of their assembly, planned in the vicinity of the so-called Smoleńsk commemoration which took place on the 10 th day of every month in the centre of Warsaw. The whole incident lasted for about 30 minutes, and they were allowed to go only once the main celebration of the Smoleńsk commemoration was over. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that she was deprived of her liberty for about 30 minutes without any apparent reason. She also complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the action of the police amounted to an infringement of her right to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly, because she was prevented from participating in a legal assembly, which she was supposed to preside, and which had been properly registered.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant “deprived of her liberty” within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention on 10 May 2022 from the moment when the police surrounded her and some other participants and started to check their identity until they were allowed to go to the place of the planned assembly ( Ladent v.   Poland , no. 11036/03, 18   March 2008, and Friedrich and Others v.   Poland , nos. 25344/20 and 17 others, 20 June 2024)?   2.     If so, was that detention compatible with Article 5 §§   1 and 2 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and was it properly recorded? Moreover, was the applicant informed of her rights?   3.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular her right to hold opinions and to impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference complained of “prescribed by law” and was it necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2 of the Convention ( Friedrich and Others v.   Poland , nos.   25344/20 and 17 others, 20 June 2024)?   4.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention? If so, was the interference complained of “prescribed by law” and was it necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention ( Friedrich and Others v.   Poland , nos.   25344/20 and 17 others, 20 June 2024)?