CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s78AC7CD7 { margin-left:42.72pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt } .s39D88665 { margin-left:28.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 8 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 55475/21 and 21405/23 Beate Regina THALMANN and Others against Switzerland and Alexandra Frida Maria SLOTTE and Others against Switzerland lodged on 5 November 2021 and 23 May 2023 respectively communicated on 18 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern a protest carried out by the applicants – twelve climate activists – on 22 November 2018 in a branch of Credit Suisse bank in Lausanne, and their subsequent criminal conviction of trespassing and holding an unauthorised protest. The applicants allege, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that their protest, held as a mock tennis game to draw attention to the bank’s investments into coal and oil industry, was a peaceful action for the protection of the environment. They complain that the criminal sanction (fine) which was imposed on them was not necessary in a democratic society. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are Articles 10 and 11 applicable in the circumstances of the present case? In particular, was holding a protest for protection of environment in a lobby of C redit Suisse ’s bank crucial to the applicants in the present case to achieve their goal of alerting the public about the bank’s investment policies into coal and oil industry (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria , no. 44079/98, § 103, 20   October 2005)? Could C redit Suisse ’s premises in the present case have been considered a “forum” for the purposes of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, given, as the applicants submit, its status as a bank of systemic importance (BIS) in Switzerland (see, mutatis mutandis, Appleby and Others , no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI § 47)? 2.     If so, has there been an interference with the applicants’ rights secured by Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention on account of their criminal prosecution and conviction of trespassing and unauthorised protest? 3.     If so, was that interference justified under Articles 10 § 2 and/or 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, considering that the protection of environment, as a topic of public interest, in principle, benefits higher level of protection (see Ludes et autres c. France , no. 40899/22, 3 July 2025, §   97), were the criminal prosecution and the sanctions imposed on the applicants proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Represented by Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Domestic proceedings 1. 55475/21 Thalmann and Others v.   Switzerland 05/11/2021 Raphael MAHAIM Beate Regina THALMANN 1985 Prilly German Paul CASTELAIN 1997 Lausanne Swiss Claire CORBAZ 1996 Bienne Swiss Alexis DEPRAZ 1995 Lausanne Swiss Antoine Francois Gwen KOVALIV 1995 Lausanne Swiss Benoit MENDEZ 1998 Renens Swiss Alicia MICSIZ 1998 Renens Swiss Titouan RENARD 1998 Renens French, Swiss Dimitri RUDRA 1998 Blonay Swiss Guilhem SICARD 1997 Sergy French Djana SIMEUNOVIC 1996 Pully Swiss Alexandra SLOTTE 1997 Genève Finnish, Swiss On 7 January 2020 the Lausanne Police Court acquitted Ms Thalmann and Ms Simeunovic of trespassing and unauthorised protest; acquitted other ten applicants of trespassing, unauthorised protest and obstructing the action of a public official.   On 22 September 2020 the Criminal Appeal Court of the Canton of Vaud convicted Ms Thalmann and Ms Simeunovic of trespassing and holding an unauthorised protest and imposed, on each of them, a monetary penalty of 20   Swiss francs (CHF) per day for 10 days, with a 2-year suspension; and a lump-sum fine of CHF 100 convertible into a two-day detention in case of failure to pay; convicted other ten applicants of trespassing, holding an unauthorised protest and creating an impediment to performing an official act (Article 286 of the Suisse Criminal Code) and imposed, on each of them, a monetary penalty of CHF 20 per day for 20 days, with a two-year suspension; and a lump-sum fine of CHF   150 convertible into a three-day detention in case of failure to pay.   On 26 May 2021 the Swiss Federal Court upheld the conviction of Ms Thalmann and Ms   Simeunovic of trespassing and holding an unauthorised protest; upheld the conviction of other ten applicants of trespassing and holding an unauthorised protest and allowed the appeal of those ten applicants against the conviction of creating an impediment to performing an official act (Article 286 of the Suisse Penal Code), reverting the case to the appeal court to determine whether Article 29 of the Police Regulations of Lausanne should be applicable to their actions in that part (for further updates see below, application no.   21405/23). 2. 21405/23 Slotte and Others v. Switzerland 23/05/2023 Raphael MAHAIM Alexandra SLOTTE 1997 Genève Finnish, Swiss Paul CASTELAIN 1997 Lausanne Swiss Claire CORBAZ 1996 Bienne Swiss Alexis DEPRAZ 1995 Lausanne Swiss Antoine Francois Gwen KOVALIV 1995 Lausanne Swiss Benoit MENDEZ 1998 Renens Swiss Alicia MICSIZ 1998 Renens Swiss Titouan RENARD 1998 Renens French, Swiss Dimitri RUDRA 1998 Blonay Swiss Guilhem SICARD 1997 Sergy French The proceedings described below do not concern Ms   Thalmann and Ms Simeunovic but concern all other applicants from application no. 55475/21 above.   On 6 December 2021 the Criminal Appeal Court of the Canton of Vaud dismissed the charges of creating an impediment to performing an official act (Article 286 of the Criminal Code) and obstructing the action of a public official, including a police officer, or refusing to comply with orders of a police officer (Article 29 of the Police Regulations of the Commune of Lausanne) imposed, on each of them, a monetary penalty of CHF 20 per day for 10 days with a two-year suspension; and a lump-sum fine of CHF of 100 convertible into a two ‑ day detention in case of failure to pay.   The Swiss Federal Court / 13 January 2023 dismissal of the applicants’ complaint against the conviction of trespassing and holding an unauthorised protest which had been upheld by it on 26 May 2021.