CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 178 October 2014 Yılmaz Yıldız and Others v. Turkey - 4524/06 Judgment 14.10.2014 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Failure to assess proportionality when convicting applicants for taking part in public demonstration: violation Facts – In their capacity as branch chairmen and officers of local branches of the Health and Social Workers’ Union, the applicants participated in gatherings outside two local hospitals in which they read out a press release issued by the trade union criticising the transfer of the hospitals to the Ministry of Health. The police did not prevent or interfere with either of the gatherings, but instead issued verbal warnings that they were illegal and ordered their dispersion. In subsequent court proceedings the applicants were found guilty of disobeying official orders and ordered to pay fines of approximately EUR   62 each. Their convictions were upheld on appeal. Law – Article 11: The prosecution and conviction of the applicants for drawing attention to the transfer of hospitals to the Ministry of Health – a topical issue at the time – could have had a chilling effect and discouraged them from participating in similar meetings in the future. It thus constituted an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court reiterated that any demonstration in a public place inevitably caused a certain level of disruption to ordinary life and it was thus important for public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article   11 was not to be deprived of all substance. Moreover, a peaceful demonstration should in principle not be made subject to the threat of penal sanction. However, the applicants were convicted for merely participating in a public demonstration without any assessment by the domestic courts of the proportionality of such an interference with their freedom of assembly. The reasons given by the domestic courts were therefore neither relevant nor sufficient. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 62 each in respect of pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes