CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 2025

.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 } Published on 24 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 8382/24 Sandra Catharina VAN EERDEN against the Netherlands lodged on 18 March 2024 communicated on 3 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conviction of the applicant for intentionally rendering private property unusable. During an unannounced demonstration that took place on 31 January 2020, the applicant poured a black substance, resembling oil, on the steps leading to the entrance of an office building of Shell. The Regional Court held that the applicant had created a dangerous situation, because the demonstration had taken place during lunch time and the steps had to be cordoned off because they had become slippery, rendering them for a large part unusable. The court found that even though the prosecution and conviction had interfered with the applicant’s right to demonstrate, it was necessary in a democratic society, because the right to demonstrate did not offer a carte blanche to violate the property rights of others. The applicant was sentenced to a conditional fine of 350 euros. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed. In addition to the reasoning of the Regional Court, the Court of Appeal considered that the fact that the action was part of a demonstration, was meant symbolically, and that she had intended to have the substance removed from the stairs again, did not detract from the fact that the applicant had created a dangerous situation for people using the stairs. This judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 19   December 2023. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and/or freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article   10 § 1 and Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was this interference prescribed by law, serving a legitimate aim, and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 and/or Article 11 § 2 ( see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, §§ 142-160, ECHR 2015)?